|
|
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.
Permalink Post a Comment
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. Friday, August 08, 2003
The week prior to my holidays last week I attended and worked at a conference being jointly held by the World Bank and Korea Development Institute. I found that the good people at KDI have put up some of papers presented during the conference entitled Developing and Strengthening the System of Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations and Fiscal Decentralisation. For anyone with an interest in Korea's fiscal decentralisation and local government formation this would be a good source. In the lead up to the conference I conducted some research into Korea's local government history and found the development of local goverment to be extremely inchoate but also very interesting and hopefully this kind of event can lead to further study and research in this field. I also found that there is limited English sourced information which makes these papers particularly relevant as it shows a broadening interest in this field among countries outside of Korea. Also, The Seoul Metropolitan Government has announced its Seventh Annual Essay Contest. As a previous entrant of this competition I would like to advocate it for two reasons. Firstly, I have found that its a great chance to sit down and think about what it is you like about Korea and to take you mind off the negatives. I have found it a good opportunity to remember why I came to Korea and why I'm still here. I think its important to think about the positives and write them down. Secondly, they have lots of winnrs which makes it easy to win some money. I think the second advantage is self explanatory. Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Corruption, corruption and more corruption Finding myself idle last evening I briefly switched on the idiot box and found myself confronted with the blurb for the evening 'News Desk'. The top three stories: the funds-for-summit corruption scandal and the suicide of Chung Mong-hun, the Goodmorning City corruption scandal involving MDP leader Chyung Dai-chul, and unsurprisingly, a corruption scandal involving the President's personal secretary Yang Gil-seung. I wonder if corruption ratings of countries include the severity and prominence of those involved in corruption. The leaders of a nation represent the people they lead, they also reflect to the world the kind of country/people they lead and the morals and values they uphold. The disturbing amount of systemic, high-level corruption in this country and the contempt and disregard shown by some of those under investigation should be provoking much more outcry than a bit of stunned mullet disbelieft about a suicide. All these affairs diminish respect of the entire nation and the people should be outraged on many levels but they should also reflect seriously about what to do to prevent this in the future. On the international scene it seems six-way multi-lateral talks may actually occur. However, until they set a date and time I choose to remain even skeptical that it will pan out. Agreeing to the talks is one step but the obstacles are numerous. I have commented several times on my opinion of John Bolton, which is very similar to that of North Korea's opinion of him. After so much talking about holding talks JB decided to come to Seoul and publicly determine if he could possibly fit both his feet into his. Kudos to JB his big mouth easily gulped in both feet before an international audience. What will surely upstage this event though would be if US administration sent JB to be the man in the talks. Uncategorically if the US do that, it will prove beyond doubt that they WANT the talks to fail. Among their staff they have other qualified people who have proven themselves more diplomatic regarding the North issue. Many things could happen and the North has shown that it likes party games just as much as JB. Talks are a good idea but these circumstances bode ill for any progress. Goodwill and mutual trust are lacking and they are the conditions of success for any talks. For this to occur, more time and care needs to be taken to build these things up before talks are even worthwhile (though I maintain that its better to be sitting at the table making no progress than to not be talking at all). For this, I think that the different opinions and roles of the countries in the multi-party talks could be a key. If they can cooperate than perhaps you could have the US and Japan being the force behind getting strong verification for any deal, you could have China and South Korea taking a greater role in offering the carrots and Russia acting in some ways as a mediator between both sides to help ensure a workable balance. We know that China and South Korea like offering support and aid so let them be the mechanisms for rewards. This would allow US to support a deal without actually being the ones 'rewarding' for good behaviour. Could it work? I don't know, I am just waffling but they are my preliminary ideas on the situation. First, more time to build goodwill and trust, possibly by US just being quiet and China and South Korea continuing to offer aid and oil. Second, work out a deal that works within the boundaries of each countries differences and what they are willing to do so that carrots and sticks are offered through different channels but holistically forms a workable deal for all countries.
|
Korea Blogs 
Newspapers |
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}