|
|
Monday, December 22, 2003
Touristy Stuff I had my first big chance to do some real sightseeing in America yesterday. I got invited to spend a day tripping around some wineries in Somona Valley just outside of San Franscisco. The day was rainy and overcast which, on the down side, meant I got a poor view of the Golden Gate bridge as we went across it, but on the plus side, the crowds were down at the wineries.
Permalink Post a Comment
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
News on Korea South Korea is Australia's No. 1 source of adopted babies. Begging the question what kind of society sends its children overseas?The article goes on to look at government efforts to reduce the number of overseas adoptions in an effort to address the poor image it sends but of course this only increases the number of babies left in orphanages because such a policy fails to deal with the other side, namely, Korean prejudices against out-of-family adoptions. Intelligence from Korea is reporting that Al-Qaeda has been casing the joint. Despite the anonmyous comment given that South Korean's are veterans when it comes to dealing with infiltration by terrorists it is a disquieting commentary. For some reason Korea becomes a more frightening place when you are not there but all your friends are. On the subject of dealing with threats, Foriegn Minister Yoon Young Kwan gives an interview about how South Korea hopes the North Korean crisis might unfold, emphasising the need for piecemeal and gradual opening of the economy, perhaps Chinese style, to avoid a total collapse that would bring about chaos to both North and South Korea. It looks like the poor drunk sap that killed the South Korean women in a drink driving incident could be the first US soldier to be tried by South Korean courts under the revised SOFA. I would imagine the South Korean prosecutors would be handling this matter very carefully to ensure that is exactly what happens. Australia - Shoot 'em up Foreign Policy Not only has the #%@$* Prime Minister of Australia and the spineless oppositionadvocated the death penalty to Saddam despite the fact that our country has long rejected capital punishment now the government is preparing to put guns on customs boats so we can shoot trespassing un-armed fisherman. And better yet, the Courts have ruled Australian officials do not have to take into account the likelihood that a failed asylum seeker would be killed, tortured or persecuted in their home country if deported. What is happening to my country? Sunday, December 14, 2003
Saddam Hussein has been Captured
The news of Saddam's capture seems to be on every web page in cyber space so I thought I'd get with the game as well. There is also video footage of the hidey-hole, medical exam (no footage of anal swabs), and press conference.
"Tax Bomb" The Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs is being accused of threateningan excessive hike by altering the property tax calculations. This obviously pits Metro Goverment against the Central Government since property taxes are in the realm of local government, not central government. MOGAHA is justifying its actions by saying that the reforms will address problems of disequilibria in the current system (in Korean). But the action is coming across that has some expressing doubt and predicting trouble ahead. The Korea Herald expounds, It should not surprise anyone if taxpayers put up resistance under these circumstances. Few would believe it is reasonable to raise taxes seven-fold at a stroke, even if the new astronomical rate applies only to a select few. In addition, longtime residents will make a convincing case if they claim that they are being victimized, as they have taken no speculative action. The Chosun gets a little more riled up about the issue, Such has become the situation, and yet the ministry [MOGAHA] is being stubborn enough to say it's going to push ahead according to the government's plan. Indiscriminate bombing of the people with "tax bombs" is predictably going to invite tax resistance, so it appears to have the crazed idea that being obstinate about the whole thing will save the government's pride.If this does blow-up I doubt anything will save the government's pride. But there is something further to consider, I think, in this issue. As the Chosun notes, The same goes with the ministry's consideration of a plan in which the range within which regional autonomous bodies can adjust tax rates would be reduced from the current 50 percent to between 10 and 30 percent. It's like saying that if smaller governments want to fight the increases, they the ministry is going to have the law changed so it can force the issue anyway. If the national government really does have any desire to open a new era of regional, de-centralized governance, then it should cease this unjustified stubbornness and give ear to the views of regional autonomous governments.As far as I am aware from a previous look into local government, while they do have the power to raise taxes within a certain band, they have rarely (maybe even never) actually altered the tax rates under their jurisdiction. Raising taxes is obviously unpopular and the system is currently structured that any short-fall in budget will be made up by central government via transfers. This negates any incentives local government might have to arbitrarily increase the taxes. However, central government's prescription of reclaiming the right to increase taxes seems an inadequate way to address this problem. It seems to be a systemic issue embedded in the structure of local government taxing policy and transfers. Therefore fixing the issue is not to have central government reclaim a right that belongs to local government as this will only weaken the progress of decentralisation and create animoysity between central and local levels. Unrelated to Korea I finished my first quarter at Stanford! Hoorah! Now I have "time-without-classes" to busily get started on my thesis. Thursday, December 11, 2003
A Lesson in Tact The timing of the Bush Administration asking for non-coalition-of-the-willing countries to show benevolence by cancelling their debt with Iraq just after the Pentagon told them that they werebarred from bidding for Iraq reconstruction projects was comical. The co-ordination and communication obviously absent at the top level was suddenly very salient and very funny. Suffice to say, I doubt any country will be feeling charitable enough to cancel its debt for the US colony of Iraq. A Look into Japan’s Ambitions Recent international events and Japan’s reaction is creating a maelstrom of tension in Asia. In particular is Japan’s decision to send peace-keeping troops to Iraq at the behest of US. The decision is causing much angst in China and and Korea (or that part of which Hankoyreh is representative) (in Korean - hat tip to Marmot for the link). A primary reason to oppose this move stems from Chinese and Korean memories of WWII atrocities and fear of Japanese recidivism. However, for Japan, following the US lead in foreign policy is not only a norm, but is all the more pertinent in the context of the current North Korea nuclear crisis. By sending troops Japan is able to affirm the strength of its alliance with US, provide a background to expect mutual assistance in the eventuality of war or increased threats from North Korea, and to diminish criticism of its ‘checkbook diplomacy’ and address its free-rider image. But more than that, this could also be interpreted as yet another move toward becoming a ‘normal’ nation. Henry Kissinger long ago predicted the inevitability of Japanese re-armament and even a build-up of nuclear capability. Evidence of moves in this direction is not hard. Recent Milestone Changes in Japanese Security Policy 1. In 1992 the Diet in Japan passed the “International Peace Cooperation Act” which allowed for the deployment of peace-keeping troops overseas for peaceful purposes. Japan sent troops to Cambodia, East Timor, and now Iraq A further indication that Japan is increasingly breaking free of the shackles of a US-Japan alliance is its increased leadership role in Asia. While only a few years ago Japan would have been pulled into line by the US for promoting regionalism that excluded the US, Japan is now championing the expanding role of ASEAN+3 and has recently concluded its first bi-lateral trade deal with Singapore. This trend is not only reducing the influence that US maybe able to exert in the region, but it is also lining up Japan and China as competitors for regional dominance. The Financial Times notes that “Tokyo would be unlikely to make public its negotiations with four new countries unless it thought it had a realistic chance of concluding them. That suggests prime minister Junichiro Koizumi's government may be prepared to get tougher with vested interests in what it deems to be the national interest.”The key here is national interest. On both the security and economic front, if Japan perceives that it will be better served by forging its on path rather than continuing to rely on US protection and membership in US dominated multilateral economic arrangements, it is not inconceivable that Japanese re-armament is just around corner and whatever else that may entail - most likely a souring of relations with other Asian nations, especially Korea and China and an arms race in Asia. Immune to Mad Cow Korean scientists have developed a mad cow-resistent bovine. Surely not turning the cows into cannibals and giving them a cow-free diet would be a far cheaper means of creating a mad cow-resistent cow. Afterall, prevention is better than cure/genetic modification. Saturday, December 06, 2003
An update on Buan's nuclear waste dump project with some proponents of the project announcing their presence to a skeptical audience. This is a positive development and helps show that Buan's rioters are not the whole of society. Friday, December 05, 2003
Party Politics in Korea Cathartidae has made some comments on Korea's solons and the political maneuvering between the MDP and the Uri Parties, namely a possible re-merger. The basic premise of th arguement as articulated by the Korea Herald is that the two parties may merge to get a bigger support base for the upcoming elections. The lawmakers, who are under enormous pressure to win next year's parliamentary elections, argued that coordination of the MDP and the Uri in selecting candidates and its strength as one group would almost surely guarantee victory in the elections, they said.The article didn't metion this but it seems to me to be a HUGE logical jump here regarding the base of support and the reason for lost support in the first place. I would argue that factionalism between conservative and reformists in the original MDP party will not be solved by a reunion and also that Roh himself will not be able to gain any popularity by returning to the MDP. Firstly, any rejoining of the parties will come across as a failure of the Uri Party and only heighten the position of the conservatives within the party. Secondly, Roh's floundering in the political arena between parties and declining popularity will not improve by such a retreat back to the original party. The logical leap then, is how do these two parties figure that the people will continue to support them, even return to support them, after all this shfiting and changing only to end up back where they started? I would be inclined to think that any merger would be viewed skeptically and be unlikely to gain support. Perhaps the talks of a merger will not actually lead to any merger at all. In the meantime, Roh's followers are trying to brainstorm ways to win the election, or less ambitiously, let people know who they are. Jeff in Korea has a LONG blog about *bad* Korea using protectionism, industrial policy, and export promotions and argues that it would be better for the Korean economy to become more open. I think I can pretty much say I disagreed with the argument in its entirity but its definitely worth a read. The back and forth bantering of how trade barriers affect an economy, to what extent, and what constitutes barriers and what is culture , what kind of trade it is, be it FDI, intra-industry, intra-sector, or direct exporting, etc, etc has been hashed out in the Japan-US case and the dynamics are very similar with the Korea case. For example, is Korea really hurting itself by paying extra for rice or is it actually helping itself by providing rural employment and keeping some food growing capacity firmly entrenched for national security, domestic stability, regional balance, etc reasons. I don't think any country would be fool enough to abandon its food growing capacity and let the "market" have a free reign, however inefficient the agriculture may be. The assertion often noted that countries (including Korea but many others as well) should open their agriculture market to "competition" when the main entrants into the market would be America's *massively* subsidised US farmers reeks of hypocrisy. The below cartoon was published in Australia over the proposed FTA between US and Australia that is running into problems because the Australians want greater access to US markets but (not) surprisingly this has been met with resistance. Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Downer Shows His Age Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer obviously went to school at a time when realism was the norm as evidenced by this article. He makes an outdated arguement and obfuscates some points. Downer's argument is that Australia is not just a "middle power" but a relevant and important player on the world stage and that Australians should be proud of such. To back up his point he reverts to realist measures of power such as economy, population, land size. He also notes military prowess but only through anecdotel evidence such as our role in East Timor and our role in the "coalition of the willing". He notes that our economy is ranked 12th in the world, our land mass is sixth largest in the world, and notes even "our weakest measure, population ranks us at about the top 25% of the world's nations. Apart from the fact that realism is no longer considered a relevant IR theory for explaining the current world, we can also see that the information is misleading and/or weakly argued. The first measure of the economy, as being in 12th place - as every Australian (should) know(s) - represents a decline in Australia's economic world rankings over the past years. Our overall economy has lost ground and at the industrial level this is also pronounced with some of our key industries such as steel, sugar and others (I'm guessing coal, and other agriculture products but am less certain on the state of these) where we ranked top or near top in the world but have declined over time relative to other economies. This is not a strength, this is cause for concern. As for land and population, aside from being outdated measurements of nation's power, our land is largely uninhabited and desert and "top 25%" in terms of population would appear to be middle power status to my mind. However, apart from the inappropriate theoretical application and archaic measures of national power applied by Downer, the underlying arguement of this article is contentious. He suggests that Australia should stand up and be counted as a bigger-than-middle-power and insinuates that to think of Australia as less than a big player is to not be proud of Australia. He states: The tendency to regard Australia as a second-class state infects baby boomer members of the commentariat, although thankfully most Australians, especially the young, remain uninfected.Well, I have a big beef with this sentiment. Firstly, to be a middle-power is a great thing and in no way does being a middle power infer that Australia is a second-class state. The link that being middle ranked is akin to second-class is unjustified. His comments on the sentiments of young people and of baby boomers is an over-generalisation and out of line. I'd like to know what he means by "wierd kinds of self-disgust". I can't comment on that since I don't understand what he means but I'm pretty sure I disagree. When it comes to our "achievements" in foreign policy he notes our use of the military in pushing for peace. He states, Not only do we refuse to apologise for our values and beliefs, we will help those in our region and beyond who aspire to the freedoms we enjoy. This has occurred, for example, through our continuing nation-building efforts in East Timor, our work to help Iraqis rebuild their country, free of tyranny and oppression, and through our engagement in dialogue on, and advocacy of, human rights.I'll steer clear of the East Timor and Iraq debates but I just wanted to put in a reminder that Australia's own human rights records towards aslyum seekers and indigenous Australians is not really anything to boast of and hardly gives us the right to pontificate to others. Particularly with asylum seekers we can notice that the policy is that those who aspire to the freedoms we enjoy better not try to enjoy them on our land. Australia is really a beautiful and wonderfully lucky country with so much going for it. It has much to do yet to improve on aspects of human rights and environment and other areas at home and it does have a key role to play on the world stage. However, that role is as a proud middle power, which we are, will probably always be, and should be grateful/happy to be. As a middle power country we have wealth, political freedom (except for Pauline Hanson who we threw in jail), access to world markets, and a competitive and vibrant economy. This is no longer a realist's world, and rather than taking stock of hard power we should be considering more carefully about our place in the new world of ad hoc international alliances, and economic interdependence. I think its a good thing it is to be an stable middle power in a world of failed states, ethnic and civil clashes, and terrorists. Friday, November 21, 2003
The Buan Riots
Buan county was the sole bidder and consequent awardee to construct a nuclear waste dump in Korea. However, the somewhat surprising outcome of this project has been the mass and intense riots that have broken out over the issue. It was only about two months ago that the mayor/county head was roundly beaten to a pulp by angry protestors over this issue. And yet the riots have continued and gotten increasingly violent with molotov cocktails and other weaponry coming into play. You can see some fairly graphic footage of the riots and read (in Korean) a chronology of events at this site. The footage is well worth viewing. The Joongang Ilbo is criticising President Roh as being too lenient. By tolerating illegal demonstrations and showing leniency, the administration might gain popularity temporarily. But the tolerance will result in the collapse of national discipline and social order. Demonstrators who use violence and the leaders of groups that lead or instigate violent rallies should be held accountable. By punishing them, we must let others who stage rallies often understand that they cannot get anything out of violent demonstrations. President Roh has reportedly said like of the project itself that the results of the scientific investigations won't come out until July next year after which the initial administrative procedures can follow but at present things are only in the preliminary stage and there are still procedures to be followed according to the law for situations like this. (or if my translating is bad, he said nothing like that at all). Now, perhaps I haven't read enough information about this but I have a large amount of questions. What was done during the bidding process by the public to express their opposition to this project? How many letters and to which levels of government were written and what was the tone and content of these? What activits have sought to engage in the political process to overturn this result? What intermediary measures were taken before arriving at the protests to overturn or express dissatisfaction with this project. And if the scientific study is still over seven months short of coming out, what exactly are they complaining about and what basis are they using to support their argument? In short: in what way and to what extent were democratic processes available to the public utilised before we got to this?
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Kickstarting Talks Stanford held the first of three panel discussions this afternoon under the rubric of "The North Korea Nuclear Crisis: The Perspective from Three Allies". This panel comprised (and I don't have the flyer with me so I'm a bit sketchy on offical position/titles) of a former Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Trade in Korea, a former negotiator for the Agreed Framework under the Clinton Administration and a person representing the Japanese point of view whose position/former position is unknown to me. After arriving late and spilling coffee all over myself and the floor (carpeted) I had missed the first two speakers. However, the guy who worked for the Clinton Administration gave some insight into the difficulty of negotiating with the North Koreans via four-way talks and surmised on the obstacles facing the larger arena of six-way talks. He also noted the deterioration of the situation compared to 1994 and how this is making things even more difficult. In particular he noted that we currently don't know where the plutonium is and that since 1994 the trust each party has in the other has declined significantly. In the question and answer part the main point of discussion was how things might evolve that would actually take us from having talks about talks to actually having talks about addressing the situation. That is, what would each party might have to do to begin meaningful discussion and how might we plan a roadmap that would outline the path along which progess can be gauged. It was mainly thought that the first step to progress would have to come from North Korea. That is, North Koreans would have to re-freeze their program and allow inspectors back in as a first step before moving on to the next point. But since that doesn't seem likely we also discussed what else might happen that would move things away from the current 'muddling through'. One possible outcome suggested was a terrorist attack with material traced back to North Korea. It was generally thought that if that was to happen then the current situation toward North Korea would definitely change (though that is more the nightmare scenario) or otherwise some other vague means that no-one currently can predict. Against any progress was the observation that, there is an absence of a timeframe, or set "markers" to map out a framework through which progress might take place. Also, there is no clear and plainly stated "red line" past which the North would know not to cross and due to the absence of these things we are likely to see more muddling through and maintennance of the current, yet tense, status quo. For the conclusion, the panel in general was 'cautiously optimistic' that the situation won't get worse. Not very encouraging but I'm inclined to agree. I don't think any party at the moment has any incentive to rock the boat for fear of creating something worse than what we currently have. Sunday, November 16, 2003
Korea IS a law Abiding Country and Movement of the Capital CAN be Justified When considering if a country is law abiding the first thing that needs to be remembered is that every country has many, many laws covering a plethora of areas. Kevin at IA had this to say on November 11th (I'm sooo behind in blog reading this is a bit dated; I do apologise) In the same way that I wouldn't bother to read an editorial in a French paper called FRANCE IS A NATION WITH BACKBONE or one in a Japanese paper titled JAPAN DENOUNCES CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, I simply stopped reading right after I saw the headline of an editorial in the Korea Times, titled humorously enough, KOREA IS A LAW-ABIDING COUNTRY.I did take the time to read the article because when I read the title of the article my instinct was to agree with the statement rather than throw it out of hand as Kevin did. Now, I think the reason for that is this: I'm guessing that when Kevin read the heading he thought of the high rates of corruption in the country's political and business circles and came to the quick conclusion that Korea is not a law abiding country. On the other hand, when I read the title, I immediately agreed with the comment as my thoughts went straight to street level crime and the safety of Seoul and other major metropolisis throughout Korea. I thought of street crimes, women's safety issues, car-jackings, pick pocketing, muggings, guns, etc. I recalled how I often walked down the streets lighted or dark with a complete sense of safety at any time due to the very low rates of street crime. I recalled how I often left my bag at a desk and could leave it there in the knowledge it would not be touched or the number of times people have picked up my phone or wallet after dropping it to return it to me. To me, Korea is a law abiding place where people respect properiety and person much more than I have witnessed being the case in "western" countries. But then there is the article itself. What the article was actually referring to was the recent illegal street demonstrations and tendency to violence, particularly the use of molotov cocktails, during said assemblies. Of the demonstrations it says: The KCTU leadership called for the demonstration in the heart of Seoul to stop employers from provisionally seizing the property of unions in damage suits against their illegally-staged labor strikes and to demand the abolition of what they claimed was discrimination against irregular workers.Thats quite a broad agenda. But of course the main concern of all this violence according to the editorial: What would foreigners as well as ordinary citizens think upon seeing the burning streets during peace time, not war time. The article tried to argue (to its 'foreigner' readership) that the protests were selfishy motivated and the perpetrators should not be regarded as being typical and that everyday law abiding Koreans do not condon or engage in such activities. I agree that Korea is a law abiding country to the extent that we can label a whole country as being law abiding or not. We see violent racially motivated riots, and hooliganism in UK, gang shootings, serial killers, and high level corruption in US, violent demonstrations in France and Italy with burning cars and the like, yet I think we generally consider all those countries to be law abiding. I don't see Korea as being more or less law abiding. And I think that the safety of the streets in Korea should be the envy of other nations. Shifting the Administrative Capital
When I first head about Roh's idea to shift the admin capital from Seoul to Daejon I was appalled. Mostly because I worked for the admin and the thought of shifting to Daejon was way less than appealing. Fortunately, like the five day work week, I left before any action was taken. And although I didn't like the idea I could see that there was a practical arguement behind it and that there are some clear benefits to this idea. But first, Goldbrick in Seoul gives us the con side to the argument. Its too expensive, its not conveniently located and he also argues that shifting all the branches of government and not just the executive defeats the purpose of decentralisation. Mr Goldbrick in Seoul also notes: Thank goodness the People's Participatory President has single-handedly decreed that the capital of Korea, which has been in Seoul since about 1392(!), must move out of here just because he says so. Firstly, it is true that it is expensive but so too is the massive concentration of population and infrastructure in Seoul at the expense of other areas. In 1995 when local government was re-introduced to Korea the underlying objective was to achieve more balanced growth across the peninsular and stem the tide of urbanisaiton and mobility toward Seoul. Still nascent, efforts to this end have been underway ever since with mixed results. The move of the admin capital would be a huge step toward boosting another area outside of Seoul and taking pressure off Seoul itself. Reducing traffic and improving quality of life for those in Seoul via a population shift surely should be counted in a cost benefit analysis of this proposal and not just the $ amount. This move would be part of the broader plan of decentralisation and was part of the mandate upon which he was elected. I don't think its quite fair to say that it is solely Mr Roh's doing that is driving this matter. And while Seoul has long been the capital of Korea, that certainly doesn't mean you can't adjust to new circumstances or practicalities and shift the admin part. Seoul is way over-populated and stressed and could benefit alot from this move. Secondly, I think the decentralisation aspect is to separate business and government centres rather than executive branch from judicial and legislative. For example, countries like Australia, and US (and maybe China) are cases where the government (executive, judicial and legislative) are in one city (Canberra, Washington and Beijing) while the business centres are elsewhere such as Sydney, Melbourne, New York, and Shanghai. The decentralisation then is not of the brnaches of government to different cities, which would arguably be unworkable but rather, from government and business. In the case of Korea where the business - government ties are seen as being too close anyway, such a move seems to be justified as a means of weakening those ties. The last point made was the inconvenient access to the proposed new admin capitals. The argument presented here was quite good and I agreed with it totally...until I this Korea Times article which shows the plans to extend the fast rail system to the admin capital whichever one it becomes. This new development would negate the worries of how to get easily to and from the new admin capital. But after saying all that, I don't actually want to see the move of the admin capital away from Seoul. I can't justify my opinion on practicalities as I think the move make sense and is perhaps even over due. But I do think that shifting the admin will take away from Seoul part of the essence of what makes it such a vibrant and interesting place to live. Thursday, November 13, 2003
Washington action toward North Korea The FCNL is an organisation that lobbies in Washington on various issues including North Korea. I;m not saying I agree or disagree with the stuff on the site but I thought it had some interesting sources. We got to hear about their activities a little on Korea Peace Day (Nov 6th) from Karin Lee who gave a talk for the event. She also mentioned this testimony by Michael Horowitz which is an interesting read. And of course Free North Korea is always a good site and also links to the worthwhile report on The Hidden Gulag. There is also discussion coming out about the North Korea Freedom Act. Mostly I get the understanding that this is being supported and lobbied by religious groups. It hasn't as yet (as far as I know) come out formally and so there is no official debate, notably from South Korea on this matter yet. Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Studying in America The Institute of International Education has issued a report on the demographics of international students in USA which the Joongang Ilbo has addressed (in Korean). Which according to my dodgey Korean, says somehting like: Chinese, Indian, and Korean students make up the top three for students studying abroad in America.. It also goes on to say that there are about 586,323 foreign students studying in America of which 55,519 are Korea, representing about 9%. Also by continent, Asians are the greatest source of international students making up around 51%, Europe 13%, Central and South America 12%, Africa 7% and the Middle East 6%. The most popular subject chosen by students studying abroad is Busness Administration at 20% followed by engineering at 17%. Of course, all that is according to my dodgey translating and its late at night so, if possible, read the article. This is hardly surprising stuff though. The fervor with which Koreans work to get into US universities is pretty amazing. The Korean Government also issues scholarships competitively to send a certain number of public servants each year to study abroad - the majority going to US to do business admin, public policy, or economics. I used to think there was little need to study abroad in US but after living in Korea and talking to so many people who had spent time here to study I changed my mind to the extent that I decided to do the whole study-in-US thing myself. I think value of studying abroad cannot be overestimated. Saturday, November 01, 2003
In Brief CNN is reporting that a guy has been arrested for exporting use in North Korea. Fred Kaplan at Slate has comments about Hwang Jang Yop. I think Mr Hwang is due to give his talk at the Senate sometime this week which may prove interesting reading. And finally, Congressman Curt Weldon and co who were planning their second Peace Tour to North Korea have had their plans scuppered by the White House. Monday, October 27, 2003
The UNAFF 2003 The Stanford Film Society in cohoot with the United Nations Association has, for the last few days, been hosting the, United Nations Association Film Festival. That site has some great links to social activist sites including one that was recommended to us called, Witness. I personally managed to get my grubby hands on more than my fair share of tickets as my department was giving some away for freebies and I was there early enough to get first choice. The first film I saw was "Anonmously Yours" which looked at the sex trade industry in Burma and Thailand. They interviewed, among others, two girls who were victims of poverty and hated their lot in life, another woman who seemed to have accepted and made the best of bad situation and noted that it was a better life than the poverty she had come from, and the third main character was a woman who worked at the brothel selling the girls who had become a social worker in Burma. The next two sessions I attended were on Friday and came under the theme of "War and Peace". The Tree That Remembers interviewed men and women who had become poltical prisoners in Iran during the Revolution before escaping to Canada. The documentary was motivated by the suicide of an Iranian former prisoner who killed himself in Canada. The director tried to find out why this man had been so haunted 10 years after escaping from Iran that he couldn't bear to live anymore. The next film, "Plan Colombia" was not surprisingly about The US' Plan Colombia. It exposed the hypocrisy and bordering on conspiracy theory US policy in Colombia, supposedly to fight drugs but actually to make money for the military industrial complex in America and to support the Colombian government to ensure a stable and close oil supply. It went into the role of the School of the America's in training terrorists and future murders and dictators. During the discussion after the movie one of the audience brought to our attention the School of the America's Watch which protests against the school. The next session focused on Africa with Liberia: America's Stepchild, which outlined the history between US and Liberia and how Liberia got to its current situation of bloody civil war, and Zimbabw Countdown which chronicled the rise of Robert Mugabe during the war of independence from British rule to the present day and how he has changed from a freedom fighter into a cruel dictator. And finally, I only got time to go see one movie today, which also happens to be the festivals final day. Today I saw "Storming the Summit: The Bloody Days of Genoa" which told the story of police and political conspiracy at the G8 summit in Genoa to implant violent fascist protestors amidst the demonstrators to discredit the anti-globalist movement. It showed some fairly violent footage of the violent crackdown by the police during the summit as well. That was the sixth annual UNAFF so presumably there will be more to come in the following years. I found these documentaries to be well prepared, interesting, and highly informative. Of course, it also meant that I have not done ANY study this weekend at all despite the onset of mid-term assessments. Saturday, October 25, 2003
Not "Our" Party; "Roh's" Party The brand new, but not yet officially named "Uri Party" has gotten some initial criticism for being confusing. There is also a translation and comment from Oranckay about the naming of this new party. But whether its spelt Uri or Woori, it spells stupid. The funadmental reason this is not a good name for a party is that it has absoluetly no meaning whatsoever. Calling your party, "our party" doesn't say what the party stands for, doesn't allow for anyone to discern the guiding principles or ideology of the party, and its also the name of a bank in the country. Might be better had it been called the "Roh Moo-Hyun and his band of loyal followers" party which is exactly what it is. The number and frequency with which political parties are established and disbanded in Korea is mind-boggling for those who come from countries where stable poltical parties dominate the scene. Indeed, Australia's Labor Party celebrated its centenary in 1991 well ahead of the Liberal Party which was only a youngun of 50. Contrarily, Korean political parties are so strongly characterised by their leader that as soon as the leader changes, the party is often disbanded and a new one emerges with the new leader. That is to say, transfer of power of party heads rarely occurs, at least for any amount of time, in Korea. The implications of this stem down in the party's ability to maintain stability of the nation. As we see already the lack of confidence in the party and the changes going on at the party level are greatly affecting the governing of the country. Already there are calls for a cabinet reshuffle in light of the crisis. Frequent cabinet shuffling due to party squabbles and factionalism only leads to instability and poor country managment. DJ's own frequent shuffles only led to inconsistency in policy and confusion. As I've mentioned, in just three years at the Ministry of Planning and Budget there were four ministers. But a cabinet shuffle goes much deeper than this. With each ministerial change there was a shake up at the office level. So in some cases a director appointed just two months prior to my office would then be shifted off to another office. Of course the new people in charge of the office would not know what the previous boss had done, and because everyone had changed jobs there was no time for information exchange or training. The result being that with every change some projects would be abruptly stopped and new ones taken on and this happened every few months. If Korea wants a stable political environment and better names for its parties it needs to establish firm committed parties based on policy and ideology and not on personalities. The current swings and machinations are undermining the countries ability to move forward not only politically but economically and socially. Thursday, October 23, 2003
"That's the Australian Parliament for you" Bush's speech in the Aussie Parliament was met with hecklers from the anti-war Labour and Green Parties. Bob Brown, leader of the Greens calling out "We are not a Sheriff" at one point reportedly getting a welcome laugh. Of course, heckling a characteristic of the Aussie Parliament but its good to see that we do it even to visitors. You can't beat a good flying insult session.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Discussing North Korea Carthatidae posted a link to an article advocating the end of the Kim dynasty in North Korea. A interesting article. Stanford, as part of Homecoming, held a panel discussion on Friday entitled: Its a MAD mad World: Prospects for Security, Diplomacy, and Peace on the Korean Peninsular. Speakers were , Bernard Black, Mi-Hyung Kim, Scott Sagan, and Shin Gi-wook. It was chaired by Allen Weiner. Each speaker addressed a different perspective of the issue such as North Korea, South Korea, & US and highlighted the big differences in priorities between US and South Korea and the possible motivations behind North Korea's actions as a means of trying to assess which policy approaches might work and which might not. The general consensus in the end was that this is a difficult situation and none of the options are attractive and different options are even less attrative than others for different countries. Professor Sagan brought up the interesting topic of 'precedent setting' and looked at what lessons other countries who possess the capabilty to develop nukes might learn from US handling of the North Korea issue. Antoher issues mentioned was the unlikelihood of making much further progess on this issue until after the US elections in 2004. As one speaker put it, the North is probably hoping that regime change will come to US before it comes to them. During the question and answer session, Jim Woosley, former director of the CIA and apparent alumni asked a question or rather a comment about the possibility and forces required to change a system from within. Korea Peace Day I have added numerous new links to my site which was a much overdue update. Among the newbies is the link to the Alliance of Scholars Concerned about Korea. Co-founder, Professor Shin, is a member of the Stanford faculty and has been telling us about this upcoming event which seems quite worthwhile. Thursday, October 09, 2003
Friday, October 03, 2003
Virginia Postrel
Fellow blogger, albiet a way more famous one, Virginia Postrel was at the campus bookstore last night to give us a talk and read some passages from her new book The Substance of Style. Although I haven't read the book and after a day of heavy spending for text books I was not inclined to make any more purchases I found her talk quite interesting. Although I think, on the surface, I disagree with the hypothesis that over emphasis on style and the aesthetic imperative is 'not a bad thing'. I am inclined to be of the opinion that *over* emphasis on asethetics can crowd out more useful (socially and personally constructive) things to do with one's time or energy than spend x amount of hours choosing colour schemes and agonising over beige or light brown for certain house fittings that no-one will notice anyway. It could be said that acceptance of the asethetic imperative can lead to greater 'dumbing-down' of the population by validating it and allowing pursuit of such to be undertaken at the expense (as mentioned) of more usefull stuff. Hoever, I should clarify my expression of "over-emphasis". I certainly agreed with her comments of us as sensory creatures who notice difference much more astutely than we take in sameness and our desire and need to be changing and expanding our ideas and that vision and asethitical means are a channel of such. Therefore I would guess that there is minimal substance in style and something that should not be neglected but to say that it is "not a bad thing" may not always be true. I think it can, in some cases, be a bad thing. Also in the sense of the amount of waste that is produced due to making things more stylish and to offer more choice. Friday, September 26, 2003
New Political Circumstances Wow! I stop paying attention for a couple of measly weeks and what happens? The ruling party factions finally stop their in-fighting and break up the party. Enter the new People's Participatory and Unity Party. Although from first glance it seems the party has neither people participation (support) or unity as evidenced by Roh's crushing defeat is appointing a new BAI chief. The Financial Times also takes a look at the issue in terms of Roh's ability to rule with such weak backing from the National Assembly, his party (and former MDP members) and from the people. He now has less than 30% support. The FT also cites (my former professor from my old school) Juang Hoon, professor of politics at Chung Ang University "The past week has demonstrated the weakness of Korea's fragmented party system and the president's lack of power in parliament,".It will be interesting to note the next nomination process. The recent history of the Prime Minister appointment of lame duck president Kim Dae-Jung toward the end of his rule comes to mind in this cirucumstance. Also, I read that Australia and Korea have agreed to set up an anti-dumping committee. Probably won't hear anymore about that but if anyone hears how this goes I would be interested to know its progress. Entertainment News And in some sad entertainment news I read that Robert Palmer has died of a heart attack at age 54 - way too young. Friday, September 19, 2003
I arrived! Haven't had time to do the usual news search and may not have time for a few more days yet. So I have no (un)informative comment to make about Korea. In the meantime, initial things I've noticed: 1. Grass and trees here seem to grow out of the earth as if it is natural for them to do so 2. The sky is blue and clouds are white 3. The sun generates heat 4. There are stars in the sky at night and moon actually 'shines' 5. Convenience stores are not as conveniently located as in Korea 6. Americans have loud voices and nice cars 7. There are no (full length) mirrors in the buildings or cafes I haven't left campus yet so that is all I can comment on. Its wierd being an international student but looking like everyone else. Saturday, September 13, 2003
WTO Protests In a book about Korea, (maybe "The Koreans" by Michael Breen but I can't remember exactly) there was a story about a foreign correspondent reporting on a protest in Korea. The story goes that on seeing a Korean protest group cut off their pinky fingers as part of the protest he reportedly said something like "at that moment I knew for the first time what it meant to be a foreign correspondent because that act was fucking foreign". I was reminded of that story when I read this absurdity. Saturday, September 06, 2003
The above picture is apparently the North Koreans celebrating the re-election of Kim Jong-Il as party leader. Cathartidae mentions this issue if you are interested. I just put liked the picture. "The Greatest Threat in the World to Regional and Global Peace" Former president Jimmy Carter and has again voiced his ideas about the North Korean crisis. Travelling to Japan and China with the Carter Organisation. The article says that Carter accused the Bush administration of aggravating tensions between the United States and North Korea, which he called a "paranoid nation."I think its a little rich to say that US has aggravated tensions against a country which has pulled out of the non-prolifternation agreement, kicked out inspectors, re-started its nuke program and during a meeting to work out what it would take to get them to destroy their nuke program they threatened to test their nukes. While I do agree with the premise that both sides were responsible for failing to carry out the Agreed Framework I am inclined to think that even if you congratulated the Norths for building nukes and sent them your own best scientists to help out they would accuse US of sending spys to dismantle the country and could thereby be accused of 'aggravating tensions'. Unemployed Bum Today is the last day of work. I showed up with a box of doughnuts and muffins as a treat for my office and went around all the offices and shake hands with all my ex-colleagues. The Director-General gave me a lovely traditional Korean box for a going away gift. This has been the longest job I have ever held down so its a little strange to be leaving but at the same time, the time is right to move on and the job was only ever supposed to serve as experience to take me onto the next stage. Hopefully the unemployed bum stage will only be temporary. Friday, September 05, 2003
South Korea's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has been talking it up in Washington DC, and laughing it up if the piccy is anything to go by. Perhaps part of the good humor can be attributed to reputed success by the State Department to get Bush to be a little less hard-line. US is almost as unpredictable as North Korea these days. Although this may just be a temporary matter since Mr. Armitage and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell proposed the new strategy to Mr. Bush last month. Several officials said that it was further nurtured without the involvement of many of the aides to Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, who have sought to limit the offers to North Korea.One might assume that as soon as the vacation is over Mr Bush may be swayed back to his original hardline stance.
The Economist has come out with a piece adovocating that America therefore needs to set out a workable sequence of verifiable steps to be taken. And since it understandably refuses to reward North Korea economically for giving up weapons it never should have had, others, including South Korea and Japan, could offer incentives to make any deal stick.I concur. Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Strikes The truckers are striking, while workers from GM Daewoo have gotten a rise, not to mention Kia and Hyundai all of which have now successfully striked to win large pay rises. But Time aptly points out strikes during a period of economic downturn are only goin to make the country's economic situation worse. The article also notes that, Foreign investment in South Korea has plunged by more than a third since 1999, partly due to strike fatigue. "Korea is losing its competitive edge," warns Sunny Yi, a management consultant at Bain & Co. "Unions are making things worse.". In fact, FDI has reportedlydropped from $15.22 billion in 2000 to $9.1 in 2002 and is only$2.66 billion in the first half of this year. On a side note, the decline in FDI in the article is partly attributed to the state regulations imposed by the Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Energy, the same ministry which is also being praised for leading the nation to its fifth monthly trade surplus in a row. Negotiations with the North Former Pesident Jimmy Carter has writes about the known stubborness of North Korea with a couple of good examples of their past tenacious behaviour. However, he emphasises the need to patience and diplomacy as the answer to solving the dispute. There must be verifiable assurances that prevent North Korea from becoming a threatening nuclear power, with a firm commitment that the U.S. will not attack a peaceful North Korea. This is a time for sustained and flexible diplomacy between our two governments, to give peace and economic progress a chance within a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.Although, from reading the article I got more of a sense that any solution is only going to be temporary given that every other 'solution' has only led to a cycle of crisis-agreement-failure of agreement-crisis. Trust Us, we're the government The Korean Government, those soles of integrity and honesty, have decided they have had enough of the press who insist on publicising government bribery scandals, slush funds, gifts, pictures of fist fights and other assorted negative spins relating to their works and decided to launch their own internet news service at taxpayers expense. Depends on your perspective But on the issue of press spin stories and objectivity, I found two editorials regarding a police bashing incident. The Chosun tells us An incident has occurred in which the police tried to stop some drunk men from fighting each other, then called in backup to beat on the guys en masse for around five minutes because the drunk men had bitten and struck the police who had first arrived. This scene, in which the police lost all reason and let loose the violence, was caught on surveillance cameras, leaving the police with utterly no excuse for themselves. Meanwhile, the Korea Herald reads the president's policy of a "kinder and gentler" administration, along with his forfeiture of power, seems to have created serious confusion at police departments with officers unable to enforce their authority to a desensitized public. [noting that] Last Sunday, two police officers were sent to the scene of a brawl at an outdoor drinking cart in eastern Seoul, but were subsequently beaten by the brawlers with their uniforms being ripped off after trying to break up the altercation. The scene was handled thereafter when two more policemen showed up as reinforcements. Maybe the police should follow the example of the Blue House and set up their own internet news site to gives us their spin on what happened. Monday, September 01, 2003
For Sale: One custom-made Hexagonal Table The first - and perhaps last - six-way talks have come to an inconclusive and vague ending. Early diplomatic parlance such as "positive start" or "early stages" gave way to the news that North Korea wants to test its nukes out. Some optimists are still saying that this is just the beginning and talks should proceed but it seems that even though the group agreed to meet again, they didn't set a time and now the North are saying there is no point to meet again. They could be right. New Look Kathreb As a complete dodo-head when it comes to all things computer it has taken an inordinate amount of time to make some alterations to my website. But since September marks the month that I leave Korea I felt a change to my website was in order to help reflect the changes in my life. I leave this country, which has been home these past five years (six if we count my first sojourn to the nation in 1996) to go to America (land of apple pie).
Saturday, August 30, 2003
In Brief Korea now has 23 gold medals - thats just dodgey. The National Assembly has passed the 40-hour workweek bill - the fact that the bill was passed the week before I finish working in Korea proves absolutely that they waited until I left just to spite me. And finally, the MPB has drafted up the budget for the next fiscal year. The increase in spending is lower than previous years but defense spending is up and we should all keep in mind that every year the Korean government decides they haven't spent enough and do up a supplementary budget anyway. Thursday, August 28, 2003
Last night I had to good fortune to attend the opening of the solo art exhibition of Choi Jinho. The exhibition is on display at the Kyungin Gallery in Insadong (same place as the tea garden behind the Sudo Pharmacy �?도 약국). This auspicious event was attended by the Australian Ambassador and other persons from the Australian Embassy, New Zealand Embassy, the USA Embassy, and more. I very much recommend the exhibition if you are in the area.
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Family Allowance to Increase Birth Rates The Ministry of Health and Welfare is planning to take steps to increase the birth rate. The big idea is Family Allowance. I had to shake my head in disappointment when I read this. Why? Because at best this policy doesn't work very well and its insulting to boot. The argument behind FA is to give families who are not having a child due to money considerations the incentive to change their mind. However, most developed countries have already worked out that such policies are limited in their effectiveness mostly because economics does not totally dictate such decisions. Despite generous welfare payments birth rates have continued to decline. And the reasons behind this vary due to inidividual concerns of having children but I'd like to broadly touch on two groups: those who would have kids if it was more affordable; and those who just don't want kids. For those who do want kids but find it expensive the FA is limited in effectiveness for three reasons. Firstly, FA is and never will be enough to cover the mind-boggling cost of raising a child in modern society. Secondly, most FA is a welfare payment which means that many who may be eligible don't want it as it carries the stigma of being a welfare payment. For those who want kids and want to be able to stay home and look after them, the FA is insufficient but may allow for part-time work over full-time work. For those who don't want kids these kinds of 'incentives' are obviously a waste of time. And it is a fact of moder society that more woment are choosing not to have kids, for reasons beyond economic considerations. Not wanting kids for some unknown reason still meets with ridiculous comments though it is an increasingly common phenomena. This little snippet I found on Child policy shows that Korea offers only 8 weeks UNPAID maternity leave!!! Stingy bastards! (Next worse was US with 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave.) And they wonder that birth rates are declining. Such "pop one out and get back to work!" policies are never going to be very effective. The Korea Times article also notes that the policy is for family stability. But actually, couples with child have higher divorce rates than those without kids. Universiade -Daegu: All Politics, No Sports The North Koreans are threatening to leave Universiade. I think most people wish they hadn't come in the first place and won't they please just go home. They are also calling for the Universiade committee people to apologise, which absolutely they shoud NOT do. It becomes obvious why so many countries are concerned about war on the peninsula if this is indicative of how the two Koreas are able to handle problems themselves. Either war would quickly erup or South Korea would beg their Northern brethren to come over and then apologise for ever having the nerve to build up a thriving democracy. But on the sporting front, I have been further considering Cathartidae's comments on bias judgin earlier in the week. So I just did a brief check on the Medal History section of the Universiade page and found that Korea's best take has been 10 gold medals (18th Games held in Fukoka, Japan) but usually they seem to get between 0-5. This year, so far, they have 15. I haven't read any comments of bias judging, but then again, I don't think the Uni Games ever get much newspaper coverage. Maybe its hometown advantage or maybe bias judging...I don't know. Monday, August 25, 2003
Let the Games Begin  The Marmot provides great coverage of the fist-a-cuffs event for the Universiade. This unscheduled event has proven to be a big spectator event for the games giving them much more coverage I think than they usually get. I don't always agree with the Marmot but in this case I absolutely do. Also on the games Cathartidae covers the issue of biased judging. I don't dispute the history of bias and poor sportsmanship of the Koreans but as yet I'm not sure I'm willing to concede that it is going on at the Universiade. The medals they have scored so far are for Taekwondo and Korea often does well at Taekwondo - even when they are not the judges. I think the scheduling of putting all Taekwondo events first was a way of giving the South Koreans a chance to be ahead in the medal tally before getting trounced in almost every other sport. Removing the troops is not feasible just now As the multi-lateral nuke talks get closer, Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute is extolling the benefits of pulling US troops out of South Korea. Mr Bandow has been pushing this line for quiet some time now, his book Tripwire was written in 1996. And the arguement he puts forward is stunningly rational, in my opinion. The US has no obligation to maintain security on the peninsular, the South are more than capable of taking care of themselves, and finally, if they left things might actually be more secure than with them here. But unfortunately, when it comes to arguing the withdrawal of the troops at this particular moment in history, he does not address key issues which are (I think) not to be discounted. Firstly, is political reality. He touches on inertia and the fact that nobody wants to pull them out because they have been there for so long but I think this view neglects the sense of it being no good to pull out now when they tensions are newly heightened. In particular, if US pulled out now and left the region to take care of itself, the North would hail it a great triumph and the other countries would be less than pleased. Perhaps if the troops had left when things were in a bit of a lull it would have been more feasible. The second is the matter of the power vacum. Bandow notes that South Korea could well take care of itself militarily, and this true. But the real matter is to the extent self-reliant South Korean military would or would not spark a negative reaction from neighbours such as China and more especially, Japan. Bandow even notes in his piece that, "Seoul also has unveiled plans for an ocean-going navy, one more obviously directed at Japan and China than North Korea". The risk, however real, remote, or fantasy, that US absence would induce South Korea to ratchet up its strength against its Japan or China and trigger an arms race (an issue that gets more space in his book than this article) would be greatly against US interests. Doug Bandow gives a persuasive argument for removing US military forces from the Korea peninsula but the political and military reality does not allow for it, making the article seem out of touch or less than totally relevant in the given circumstances. They should have left a long long time ago...perhaps they shouldn't have even come in the first place. Friday, August 22, 2003
Off-topic Friday 
The big news in Australia is the inprisonment of Pauline Hanson. Accusations of too-harsh a sentence are spinning around she was given 3 years for being found guilty of electoral fraud based on a technical error in registering Pauline Hanson's One Nation as a political party. I agree that the sentence may be excessive but on the big picture I have little sympathy for someone whose policies, ideas and opinions I adamently oppose. I am inclined to be of the opinion that if you don't have the smarts to even register properly than you probably aren't going to survive long in the political arena as evidenced by her tumultous and controversial career culminating in her being gaoled. I also thought her to be a very inarticulate orator - even her maiden speech at Parliament in 1996 got more notice for its shock value than for any great skill in its delivery.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Five Day Work-week (again) As the issue of the government five-day work week proposal prepares to make a dash to the National Assembly the labour unions are threatening, or have perhaps started, strikes. There are three key players involved in this situation: the government, businesses, and labour. Government's objective should be to balance economic growth and quality of life concerns by first ensuring an environment that allows businesses to become competitive and to provide citizens with the facilities and means to enjoy a higher standard of living. Businesss objective is profit and labourers' objectives are to ensure the rights of workers encompassing financial, safety, and livelihood issues. All these need to be balanced appropriately with the aim to reduce Korea's current working hours down to 40. Apparently, this is way harder than it looks. The Korea Times has quoted Park Yong-sung, Chairman of the Korea Chamber of Commerce "It is time for politicians to make a decision on the issue," he noted, arguing that no other country had ever adopted a five-day workweek through an agreement between business and labor." So after boasting of their little tripartite commission and very democratic idea of including government, labour and business together to solve issue jointly, it hasn't worked. After years of bickering we hear that the excuse for reaching a stalemate is that no other country was ever able to reach an agreement either. In short, the failure of others justifies my own failure. I also don't consider that to be true becuase I understand that in many cases, government laid a structure and then left the details to be hashed out through management-labour negotiations. This allowed for collective bargaining, industry specific solutions, and timing matters to vary although everything had to fit within the legal framework prescribed in law. Wouldn't managment-labour agreements through this mechanism be defined as 'an agreement between business and labour"??? I personally think the problem, for Korea, lies in this comment from an old Korea Times article (2001). What about the productivity of Korean labor? A recent report by the McKinsey Korea shows that Korean workers are 36 percent as productive as U.S. workers, and about 50 percent compared to their Japanese counterparts. Of course, labor productivity depends on a host of factors, including the amount of machines to work with, education, training and management skills, but this is clearly very low. Korea has high education and world class machinery and technologly. I don't know exactly about training but most employees in my office have gone off to training seminars and courses. It would seem that they don't lack too much in that department. However, management skills are a laughable oxymoron. I now suggest three simple steps that many companies could take to improve productivity which would hopefully negate the need to reduce wages: 1. Eradicate the communal lunch hour: rotate lunch hours of employees so that the office doens't effectively shut down for a total hour everyday. By keeping the place going during lunch. 2. Reduce alcohol tolerance: discourage late night drinking and eradicate naps and morning sleeps to get over hangovers 3. Work to get the job done: teach time management skills, set strict but reasonable deadlines and have management set an example of working hard in the day and leaving on time. When I first started working in Korea, I commented on how pleasant condition were in that nobody yelled or seemed stressed or ran around as if their job was way more important than everyone elses. But in part, I think now that the reason behind this pleasantness is that nobody has any sense of getting the job done in good time or doing their best, nobody is trying to impress or get ahead. In short, people are working, but nobody works hard they just work late. This McKinseyreport counters the lack of productivity argument a bit by noting that sometimes industry structure can account for a degree of percieved productivity. However, it would seem to me that inefficient industrial structure that impedes productivity gains is as big a problem as low productivity, maybe worse. Monday, August 18, 2003
China's Role In the up coming six-way talks the role of China has the potential to be crucial. Relations between China and South Korea and China and North Korea have changed dramatically since 1950. I just find it enormously odd that South Korea likes a country that fought against them more than the country/ies that fought with them. And they support a country that is propping up the North regime through aid (though the South is also bending over backwards to pay for the North's existence, its military, and nuclear program) over a country that wants to eliminate North's nuclear weapons and the regime itself. Go figure. The North Koreans also have women in their military ranks. Considering how sexist South Korea is in promoting women or placing them in any role of significance, and considering that any progress in this areas has taken an extremely long time and is still nascent in society, the fact that the North is promoting women in the military seems to indicate a diminished and desperate military force trying to make up numbers. While I wouldn't presume that they are not worthy soldiers and haven't completed rigourous training I do think the North wouldn't have let them enter if they had enough healthy men to fill the positions. On the five-day work week Strikes are a-foot to protest the government's proposal for the 5-day work week which is said to favour business. The proposal is being pushed through despite opposition based on the fact that arguments on the issue have gone on long enough and the failure to reach agreement in that time indicates that no agreeement will be found given more time. As I 've mentioned I don't really know all the ins and outs of the negotiations and these days I tend to favour the worker over corporations but it seems in this case (and other cases concerning Korean labour unions) that the labour unions have had unrealistic expectations and been too quick to strike when things aren't going their way. I can't help but think that, given the number of countries who only work five-day weeks, Korea could have easily seen how it is done in other countries and worked out a country-appropriate plan with minimum hassle. Go figure. Wednesday, August 13, 2003
No invite for JB It was just last month that the 50th anniversary of the signing of armistice was "celebrated" and as Timenotes, little has really changed in that time regarding the situation. The armistice, meant to be temporary, remains a fragile thread endeavouring to keep peace on the peninsular. But despite the face-off that still goes on between North and South Korea, the dynamics are somewhat changed. North Korea is not feared for being communist any more, it is feared for its potential to support terrorist nations/groups/individuals and it is despised for having the audacity to build a nuke and feel threatened by the world's supreme power and in turn to threaten the world (or least those parts of it wtihin striking range). The result is the same but the underlying premise of the situation has altered over time. To address the issues of the nuke dilemma, North Korea has now *finally* agreed to six-way talks. However, this one long-awaited positive step on the part of the North Koreans pales before the negative steps they have taken in the meantime to avoid talks and ratchet up tensions. But we move on, and a positive side for the US, they have stated that JB won't be attending. After my last commentary on JB I got more attention than expected. I stand by my original comments but I'd like to back and see if I can more adriotly express myself (or not). Firstly, concerning JB himself, it is my opinion that any diplomat who proceeds in an undiplomatic way to the extent they threaten to undo progress (North Korea could have used his words as an excuse to further delay talks) has not done their job - as a diplomat - satisfactorily. Though many may share his opinions, his "straight-talking" was inappropriate and his ideas could have been articulated more circumspectly so as to avert such criticism of himself and the US methods for handling the North issue. Regarding the larger picture, talks on his comments gave rise to questions regarding US motivations for engaging in talks in the first place. One theory posed was that negotiations helped to show US good intentions to find a peaceful solution. US may well use negotiations only to the extent that they seek to show other nations that such a method will not work and thus gain more broad support for military intervention. However, this tactic is only useful in so far as the other nations perceive that US has not pre-determined that talks will fail. If US has already decided that talks will inevitabley fail, I would think it useless to even bother with talks or talks of talks and better to move on to a strategy that they have faith in. Arragning talks is fruitless unless there is belief that they will work. Other stuff The CIA factbook for 2003 is now on-line. This is pretty cool, you can check out all or any countries you are interested in and get some good base information about them. Also, today is...Left Hander's Day!! As a lefty myself I was disconcerted when I first heard that on average we die some seven years earlier than righties. Especially since I'm as clumsy as they come in matters of scissors, knifes, and the dreaded vegetable peeler. The Guardiangives some comments on the day as well. Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Concerning yesterday's blog..... I found this article at Bloombergtoday and thought I'd attach it since I think its relevant to yesterday's theme concerning the five-day work week. The impression I got from reading the article is this: if the tripartitie commission of labour, government, and business hadn't taken so damn long about working out this whole five day work week matter they would have pre-empted militant labour unions from being able to push through unrealistic, damaging and ad hoc deals that well may end up being detrimental to the economy, and the workers themselves. One scenario from all this could be that organisations, having no legal backing for introducing the five day work week or global standards will bow to unionist pressures which, as the article mentions, are setting their own benchmarks on how to get the five day work week and pay rises. If a country has a history of militant labour unions then surely government and business should have know this would come about if they didn't take necessary action to a) tie labour to three-way formalised talks, b) get a workabel and timely deal agreed on and legalised to make sure that the unions would not be able to take the action that we have seen. At the end of the day, the companies and government only get what they deserved for not being more circumspect. Monday, August 11, 2003
40-hour mindset The Issue Report from the Samsung Economic Research Institute gives an outline of some issues introducing the 5-day work week. Its not a long in-depth piece so I'd like to add my two cents to some of the things it brought up. First, the paper discusses the issues of contention, which include, number of leaves, wages, and timing of introduction. On the matter of number of leaves, I think that perhaps the number of public holidays could be reduced to compensate for the new two-day weekends but in terms of annual paid, the tight fisted companies in this country, according to mine own experience, could stand to increase rather than decrease holidays. On getting a job in Australia I was automatically on four weeks a year, in this country into my third year of full time employment I still get one measely week plus my 'summer vacation week'. And while I will say that the inconvenient business hours in Australia compared to Korea mean that some 'holidays' have to be taken simply to pay bills and get household things done, the level of holidays granted to Korean workers is low. And I strongly agree that the ridiculous 'menstrual leave' should be abolished and should never have been conceived. The image that holiday gives to women is degrading and shameful and only makes women look like sickly weak little cry-babies who don't have the sense to take a pain killer and get on with our jobs. On wages, I won't dispute that I don't know enough at the company level to argue strongly on this case, but I am of the understanding that foreign companies on average (or in full) pay locals more than average wages and only have five day work weeks. It would seem to me that Korean companies, the large ones at least, are more than competitive enought to absorb the four fewer hours without reducing pay. Or perhaps delaying the next pay rise by some time. I'm not sure. The case may be more sensitive for smaller companies. For larger companies also, if they just made sure their 'salary men' stopped taking their one-hour nap after lunch you would immediatley increase their work week by five hours over the four official hours they would be dropping for Saturdays. A win-win strategy. The wages issue also mentions overtime rates. Now the argument in the text goes something like - labour unions insist on high overtime rates remaining to discourage companies from forcing them to work as much as possible. But it would appear to my, perhaps simple mind, that if you decreased the rate of overtime than the employees would be less inclined to a) listen to their boss asking them to work overtime when they could be enjoying their leisure time b) be less inclined to sit around reading the paper after work to take advantage of high overtime rates. Perhaps I missed something in the text though that would clarify this topic more for me. The third issue is the timing of introduction. I thing the time suggested of 2005 - 2012 is a tad way too long. Whilst I agree smaller companies may need time to adjust, etc, etc, that time is too long. Even 2005 - 2010 sounds more reasonable and would prompt more action at the outset. I also think 2004 sounds better than 2005 especially since they've been arguing the issue since 1998!!! For a country that prides itself on a 'quick quick' culture they sure are slow at some things. The paper then discusses some impacts and covers pro and cons and possible negative and positive outcomes. I tend to think the negative is view is overly pessimistic. Korea is well and truly developed economically and socially to absorb this change and make it work if they want to. If productivity declined it certainly is not the fault of a five day work week but the mindsets that have to adopt to it. And finally, The author brings up two good points. One, a five day work week needs to encompass flexibility so that shorter work hours doesn't mean that everything is closed on Saturdays. I thought this was a funny thing about the banks. Even Australia can open banks and shops, etc for a few hours on Saturdays, surely Korea can work out that you have to rearrange the staffing schedules. The second point, somewhat related, is the matter to make the 5-day workweek more a 40-hour work week mindset to reduce this Monday to Friday notion of working hours. That way, things can still operate around the clock or whenever, as long as the hours are in line with the policy. When I first started working (a six-day week of course!) and I heard of the introduction of a 5-day work week, I niavely thought it could happen in my time. Two years ago I realised that it could never be. And with just four more weeks left of working in Korea all that is left is to hope that it comes sooner rather than later cause a six-day work week, especially if your just a regular joe in the corporate machine, is no way to live a life.
|
Korea Blogs 
Newspapers |
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}