Death penalty could soon be « reactivated » in South Korea

These days, South Korea is living crucial times that could very well determine the future of capital punishment and how its prisoners are treated for years to come.

These last weeks, the whole country has been gripped by a popular furore against a child rapist-killer. A crime whose victim is a young teenager and which naturally enflames pulic opinion.

Similar to high profile pedophilia cases that became commonplace these last years, with Dutroux some years ago, or more recently scandals involving the Catholic Church in the US or Ireland, or the recent come back in the British medias of John Venables, one of two murdererd of the young Bugler, who is reported to have been found in possession of child pornography (originally a case dating back to 1993 in which two 10 year-old kids had killes a two year-old toddler after having tortured him), South Koreans are presently filled with rage. A rage that could well lead them to put an end to a moratorium on the death penalty that was in place since a previous President Kim Dae-jung came to power in 1998, a man who received the Nobel peace prize for his efforts in trying to reconcile the South with the North and for his historical meeting with Kim Jong-il in 2000. Kim Dae-jung who, as a member of the opposition, had himself been sentenced to the death penalty in 1980 for treason by the authoritarian regime at the time, to be freed in 1982 then have his rights fully rehabilitated in 1987, to finally become President in 1987 (swearing in in 1998).

His usccessor in 2002, Roh Mu-hyun, being himself a Humqn rights lawyer before entering politics, this tacit moratorium on the death penalty began with Kim Dae-jung was prolonged somwhow almost automatically for the duration of his presidency.

With the conservative Lee Myung-bak coming to power in 2007, former president of the construction branch of the Hyunday conglomerate, former Seoul mayor and known populist,all this could change. Even more so after the close deaths of the two previous presidents Kim and Roh, the former due to health problems and the latter after presumably commiting suicide attributed by many to the « harrassing » of the Lee administration for corruption scandals in which members of his family and close aides were allegedly involved (things being what they are in South Korea, prosecutors put an end to the prosecution after he died ; this could seem strange if we consider that justice is supposed to be independant from political power – a sign that some perceive as the proof that the prosecution was indeed politically motivated from the start, otherwise it would have gone on even after his death, because they mainly involved other people rather than himself).

But I’m straying from my subject, even if it is essential to remind the reader who South Korea owes its de facto moratorium on the death penalty to be able to better understand the current complex situation in the country.

So, about a month ago, a 13 year-old middle school student from Pusan, the second biggest city in South Korea and an important harbour in the south of the peninsula, went missing. Two weeks later, her dead body stripped of clothes was discovered in an abandoned water tank. The autopsy revealed she had been raped.

Immediately, police moved to find the murderer, and very soon the name of a suspect, or shall we say THE suspect, a young man already sentenced in the past to jail for rape, is given to the media, without being immediately caught.

The South Korean President, who is everywhere, does everything, takes care of everything and wants to make himself indispensable to the running of the country in its smallest details, speaks in the media to order the police to catch the suspect as soon as possible.

From this moment, it is possible to doubt the sincerity of his intervention, because it is obvious that he could also have contacted the head of the Pusan police in private (which he probably did by the way) without using the medias and that they would have worked at least as well, or even better, without less pressure from the media.

In such a dramatic case, in which a family is davastated by such a horrible truth, the role of a President is not to come forward by using the media and take care of his image, pretending to be close to the people’s preoccupations, but to adopt a more low-profile attitude rather than announce various things to the press at all times to show he’s taking care of the case personally.

Other Heads of States, Korean or not, would probably not have used this kind of situation to advance some parts of their programme or their ideology, some would have shown more restraint.

It is even possible to say that, when seeing how wild Lee Myung-bak’s administration is, it is just as if this crime were a golden opportunity for the party of the President, which makes new suggestions to reform or introduce laws related to the subject almost every day that passes.

First of all, the government proposed to introduce a measure that, albeit not spectacular by its looks, is nonetheless critical because of its implications. Indeed, one of these would simply consist in introduce a retroactive measure for the persons judged guilty of sexual crime on minors.

In practice, pedophiles sentenced for crimes committed after September 2008 have to wear an electronic bracelet 24h/7, but with the revision of the law that is planned, people sentenced efore this date (when this law has been introduced) will also have to wear it.

Even if, at first sight, it would be possible to think that this is not so important, by having a closer look it actually consists in introducing a principle of retroactivity, a practice that is banned from every true democracy, for nobody knows where such a reform could lead.

Today it’s about the electronic bracelet, and tomorrow ? Will someone currently sentenced to one year in jail, have his sentence changed to a 3 years, 5 years, 10 years sentence according to the circumstances at the time of the sentencing, the fluctuations of public opinion and whatever wants the government ? What will be the criteria used to judge whether it is adequate to introduce this or that retroactive measure ? Who will be judged the right person to pass law ? What will be the areas concerned ? What will be the time limit on the principle of retroactivity ?

So many questions, and of course there are no responses, because it goes without saying that the very principle of a law that creates a retroactive effect does not belong to a democratic system, but to a dictatorship, or at least a dictatorial regime.

Talking about which, President Lee does not hide his admiration for the defunct dictator Park Chung-hee, hate and venerated at the same time (assassinated in 1979), and in several occasions he shows this, for example, by putting on a military outfit (something that was not done by his predecessors) or when he decides to organise weekly crisis meetings in the bunker located below the presidential house, so that he can make the public understand how serious is the state of the economy and that he’s got things under control, like a commander in chief leading his troops to battle (that is, if people keep quiet at the back).

His government has well understood all the benefit he could draw from the murder and rape of the young middle school girl, so they launch public opinion surveys on the death penalty, in a context where the people of Korea are stimulated by the media on the issue, surveys that result in (one is tempted to add « of course ») 80 % of the public for the capital sentence ; they put forward propositions to give heavier sentences to pedophiles ; they suggest these « be kept at bay from society » once released (nobody says « how » yet) ; and, last but not least, they propose to execute the 59 inmates currently on death row since they received theor sentence.

The Constitutional Court of South Korea has recently made her judgment public, last February, on the constitutionality of the death penalty, judging that it wasn’t contrary to the Constitution of the country and that prisoners currently waiting to know what would be made of their sentence could therefore be executed.

During the 2007 presidential campaign, one of the main slogans of Lee Myung-bak, broadcast again and again, was putting forward « the 10 forgotten years » of the two previous presidencies, a period during which many progresses were made toward a greater democratization of the country to make people understand that power was in their hands. No doubt that the exponential growth of the Internet in this perios (1998-2008) largely contributed to a wide diffusion of democratic concepts in the Korean population and particularly among the young generations, thanks to a larger and easier access to information, without having to rely on conservative newspapers that dominate the written press in Korea.

By reintroducing measures to monitor the identity of people online and by taking a harder stance, closer to its core values (nostalgy for the authoritarian regimes dating back from pre 90s years), it seems indeed that Lee Myung-bak’s political party aims to get rid of, at least in part, the heritage of the 10 years that preceded his coming to power. But limit freedoms, give heavier sentences, harden repression and restart the application of the death penalty are not signs that the President, ot his party, have any kind of vision for the future of Korean society.

The « bulldozer », a nickname he received while he was the head of the construction branch of Hyundai, might think a country can be managed like a company, he’s better understand that a Nation, a society is much more than just economic indicators. Current social problems that Korea has to face are a reminder that social issues of a country cannot be dealt with the same way as those of a company.

It is a pity Lee Myung-bak does not understand that using people’s misery for political purposes, in that case the murder of a child, is not ethical (even if that’s what most politicians do most of the time) and that restarting executions of inmates on death row will not lessen, or put an end to, murders or rapes of young children, or adults. It will only result in creating the conditions for a more repressice society towards its population as a whole.

Mourning families do not need some kind of hypocritical help, they probably only want to be left alone. The execution of death row prisoners, if it happens, and the possible introduction of measures that do not belong to a democracy will not bring back their little girl, and will not garanty a rosy future to Korean society either.

Is Korea an independant state ? (Post scriptum)

As if to confirm my previous post, some retired military officers/generals recently protested wartime control transfer with a letter to the Korean president in which they claim the coming years are going to be too unstable to afford changing the current organization of the army.
In short, since everybody expects Kim Jong-il, the North's leader, to step down in favor of one of his sons (or it might take the shape of a common leadership) in the next 5 to 10 years, changing this agreement with the US would be too risky for Korea's security.

Right.

Even though analysts of North Korea think the North's succession "might" happen in that timeframe, first, nothing is for sure, and second, even if that were to happen, what about after the succession has taken place ? For sure, these same people will come up with another argument about the situation being still unstable, the US election coming up, the economic crisis having a negative impact on North-South relationships and the end of the world of december 2012 quickly approaching (i.e. Mayan calendar) we should not take the risk to blah blah blah...

What I mean is, whatever the circumstances, some Koreans (South) will always oppose a potential handover, such as the one that is supposed to take place in 2012 (before the Mayan's end of the world by the way). It only confirms the deelply seated belief they have that it is safer for Korea not to be 100% independent. This way, the US, China, or whatever superpower it happens to be have to take their responsabilities and help out Korea.

Some people might think I'm being harsh. But definitely no. I'm only being harsh toward these ex-generals who want Korea to remain submissive to a bigger power in order to get protected and not take their responsabilities.
These generals seem to think with a mindset that prevailed in the Joseon period, where China was at the center and surrounding countries had to somehow pay their respects.
The thing is, we're no longer in the 19th century, the US is not China and Americans don't envision diplomatic relationships or military alliances on this model at all, so these ex-military had rather take care of some other business, because, in any case, North Korea is not going to attack anybody anytime soon, so there aren't actually any risk of war if the people in charge on both sides act reasonably.
A closed and dictatotial regime is not synonymous with lunacy.

Is Korea an independant state ?

In a few years, South Korea should get the total control of its army back.

What is that supposed to mean ? Isn’t Korea a sovereign state able to manage its army as it wishes according to the circumstances and the required needs?

Well no.
At least not yet.

At the moment, the ones who control the South Korean army in case of war are not the Korean military but the US.

It is hard to believe that South Korea regained control of its army in time of peace only in 1994. Before that date, this control belonged to the Americans.
More recently, in one of his speeches, on the 15th of August 2004, Roh Mu-hyun, the previous South Korean president (now deceased after committing suicide in march of this year), mentioned how important it was for South Korea to own an independant military, in order to get his country free from any military interferences from the US, and to develop a partnership with the Americans where the US would be allies but not able to dictate anything to the Korean army.

So, South Korea got the control of its army back in time of peace in 1994, and this should happen on the 17th of April 2012 in time of war.

Since Korea and Koreans are both a complex country and people, the decision of the president to put an end to this military control by the US was met with strong opposition by a certain category of people, namely the old generation for whom the United States are synonymous with protection and without whom South Korea would have fallen into the hands of the communist North.

Of course, a country does not need to cede the control of its army to forge a strong alliance and be assured to get the protection of a super power – after all, it is the case of numerous US or Russian allies – but this is apparently not what seem to think some Koreans, who fear that getting back this control (a very legitimate demand) – be perceived as a weakening of their army by foreign preying eyes.

The transformation of the Korea-US alliance worries even more so some Korean supporters of the US that it represents only one part of the changes brought by the late president. Indeed, the soon to come relocalization of an important American base that is located right at the centre of Seoul (approximately the size of New York's Central park !) to Pyeongtaek, about 65 Km south of the capital, is an additional element to worry about for those who think that their country is weakening its defenses in case of an eventual North Korean attack.

The same people worry that such a move might be the sign of an American withdrawal from the peninsula that could potentially lead to a higher risk of war. As a matter of fact, by moving its troops out of range from the ‘killer box’ that is Seoul, Americans would make sure they would only have a low level of casualties in case the South Korea capital is bombarded, and would therefore be less hesitating in engaging the North head on, and less able to prevent another start to a war that never officially really ceased (only a ceasefire was signed in 1953).

It is important to know that Seoul is within range from the North artillery (not missiles, just plain artillery) and that an armed conflict would result in a real carnage in terms of civil casualties, among the more than 20 million residents of Seoul and its surroundings.

It might seem surprising that such a debate, about an element so essential to any country’s sovereignty, can exist in the first place, for what can be more symbolic of the independance of a nation that the control of its army ?

Given the fact that the present alliance between South Korea and the United States is the direct heritage of the Korean War (1950-1953) resulting from the Cold War, and since this war is technically still going on, we might be tempted to see the origin of such worries from the South in the Civil war that took place some 60 years ago.

But that would be ignoring several centuries of Korea's history, for which Koreans are extremely proud.
In fact, if we look closer, we can note an essential element in the thousand year history of the Korean peninsula, that is the fact that for a large part of its recent past, or even less recent, Kore was denied independence.

The Korean peninsula was occupied by Japan from 1910 to 1945, an extremely important period during which Korea temporarily ceased to exist in the world of international diplomacy, and which is at the origin of disagreements with Japan until today. For example the issue of the surrounding seas (the « Sea of Japan » instead of the « East Sea », or vice-cersa) that are currently visibile on numerous world atlases.

The period that preceded Japanese occupation corresponds to the Yi Dynasty, or Joseon period, embracing more than 500 years, from 1392 to 1910.
Even if during this period it is not really possible to challenge the fact that Korea was an ‘independent country’, it is also true that Koreans themselves acknowledged China’s dominance in the region, and paid an annual tribute to the Middle Kingdom, as a sign of submission, and expected China to protect them in case of trouble and a benevolent attitude toward the Hermit Kingdom, like that of a big brother taking care of his youngest sibling ; this is an image and a role fulfilled by China during the Japanese invasion of 1592-1598, during which Chinese sent numerous armed forces to help out the Korea army, and contributed to the weakening of the Chinese army, which would soone have to face the Mandchu invasions that were around the corner.

But even without going back so much in time, it is possible to notice a characteristic that seem to characterise a large part of recent Korean history, that is the fact that Korea has rarely been a really independent country, be it on the material (Japanese occupation), or psychological level (position of vassal vis-à-vis China for hundreds of years).

Therefore, it should not be surprising to see the unwillingness of some Koreans toward their government wanting to develop a more independent policy. For those, independence is synonymous with both insecurity (who will help Korea in cae of trouble ?) and unknown (what are the implications ? You have to decide on your own).

In short, Korea struggles to free herself from a schema of submission printed in its history during the past centuries. It is legitimate to ask whether Korea will be able to develop a more independent line of policy that would aim to reach a more egalitarian relationship with the Americans. That is not something easy, but since Korea has recently become part of the club of rich countries, and since its pop culture has recently experienced extraordinary success throughout Asia, therefore becoming particularly influential in the region, one might start thinking that it is possible that Korea will eventually realize she has to play a role on the international stage, partly freed from the ubiquitous American influence. It is only for her to assert, after a pause of several hundreds of years, the unique character of its culture and its own vision of the world.

But before this can happen, Koreans must be persuaded of their ability to free themselves from external influences and to act independently from other great powers. This process, if it ever happens, will probably need great many years.

Abortion in Korea

Abortion is more or less forbidden in Korea.

First of all, a few words. My apologies to all those (too rare) people who were following this blog in the past. This interruption was due to several factors, of which the main one was linked to the writing of my MA, about cohabitation in Korea. In the future, I will do my best to update it more regularly. We’ll see if I succeed in this or not.

Let’s start now with today’s particularly polemical topic.
Why abortion?
I’d be tempted to say: why not? But somehow it would not be enough.
In fact, I’m interested in this topic because I think that the legalization of abortive practices are the sign that a society has reached a certain stage when it comes to power relationships between the genders. In other words, the absence of an effective right to carry out an abortion is the indication that women lack certain freedom as to the right to control processes in their bodies, and the sign of the symbolic control of women’s bodies by men.
Therefore, it’s possible to learn a lot about a given society by observing this society’s abortion practices.
Make no mistake. Abortion is almost always a traumatizing experience—an experience that can only be imagined by men, without being able to feel it in their own body—but we observe that in general the women, the couples, who intend to have an abortion will have it whatever the circumstances, with or without a legal framework. Legalizing abortion practices is not meant to promote abortion but to help people who find themselves in such a situation, so that the whole process be less traumatizing. Furthermore, we can also observe that, as in this article, the absence of freedom to abort is not synonymous with few abortions, we can logically conclude that the legalization, or not, of abortion is often related to ideological views that correspond to a certain vision of the world, often not in sync with the reality on the ground.

Right.
So, as I was writing a few lines above, abortion is more or less forbidden in Korea.
More or less?
Well. Somehow. Although it is not possible to say that it is illegal, the conditions under which it can be performed are very restrictive. This implies that in reality, it is only possible to have an abortion in a few situations.
What are these situations?

Sections 269 and 270 of the Korean penal code, dating from 1953, were strictly forbidding abortionm but was amended in 1973m by article 14 corresponding to the “Mother and Child Health Law”, authorizing it in the following circumstances: first, when the foetus presents mental or physical disabilities; second, when one of the parents suffers from an infectious disease; third, when the pregnancy results from rape; fourth, when the pregnancy results from a relation with blood or matrimonial relatives unable to marry by law; and fifth, when continuing the pregnancy could endanger the life of the mother. In all other cases, abortion is illegal and can be punished by fines or even imprisonment.

But it does not mean that abortions are rare in Korea.
On the contrary.
In fact, it even seems that Korea has one of the highest abortion rate in the world.
Given the fact it is illegal, it means that the only available official figures are based on abortions that have been registered under the right legal conditions (because a medic/gynecologist carrying out an abortion outside of this legal framework can have his license suspended for several years, on top of possible fines or theoretical jail sentences). In other words, they do not correspond to reality, and the only way to have an idea of the scale of these practices is to refer to various estimates.

If we look for information on abortion in Korea, we systematically find an estimate that indicates 1.5 million abortions per year. It is only an estimate, but that can be found very frequently, included in some “university” schoolbooks, so it cannot be ignored.
If we search a little bit more, we find other estimates. Some of them, even more alarming, mention 2 million abortions per year. And the ‘lowest’ of these estimates stands at about 350,000.

To give you a rough idea of what this represents, we can compare these figures with other countries. In France, with a population of about 62 million, the total number of annual abortions stood at 210,000 in 2006. In Japan, with more than 127 million people, this figure stood at 320,000 in 2003.
The Korean population stands at more than 48 millions. I let you calculate the number of abortions in proportion of the population.

Even if we take the lowest estimate, we realize that Korea has a particularly high number of abortions in comparison with France and Japan.
The question is: which one of these estimates is right?
We can wonder about the huge variations between different estimates, because between 350,000 and 1.5 or even 2 millions, this is an incredible difference. How credible are these data ? That’s the problem. We can see that such variations has probably ideological origins implying the ones in favor of abortion and the ones against it (or, as our American friends would put it ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life; a use, and manipulation of language that would almost be funny (with the insistence shown by the Americans to systematically use a wording refusing to use negations – let’s be positive!!!) if the subject was not so essential) whose goal might be to shock by exaggerating figures.

It is interesting to note that anti-abortion laws, which intend to reduce such practices, seem to be having very little effect, or not at all. For, how can we even realistically imagine that an eventual legalization of abortion would result into a rise in numbers given the already sky-high figures that can be observed ?

During my Korean adventures, I had the occasion to meet several Korean women with whom I could discuss the subject. I could get the confirmation, first-hand—from women having carried out an abortion—that terminating a pregnancy in Korea (in Seoul) was very easy, practiced in most hospitals, and relatively affordable (300,000 wons a few years ago, which is about 170-180 Euros at today’s exchange rate, but rather 250 euros at the time (maybe about $250))
For information, we need to be aware of the fact that public hospitals are pretty scarce in Korea, most of them are private, clinics, whose tend to focus more on profit that public ones. Abortion is therefore practiced entirely illegally et without any link with the Korean social security system (except in the rare cases that are done within the legal framework).

Abortion is common that a Korean woman—who had had an abortion herself—was adamant in saying that aborting was legal. Even when I heavily insisted she did not ‘believe’ me when I was telling her it was simply not the case, that it was illegal, except in a few situations.

This story made me realize how common abortion was in Korea. For how else would you come to think that it is legal unless the whole process leading to terminating a pregnancy is ordinary? Those who have seen the Romanian movie “4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days’ about clandestine abortion will understand what I mean. Illegality usually leads to clandestine and dodgy conditions, but it is not the case in Korea. We observe a total opposition between theory, law, and the way its application, its practice.
A recent study, form 2003-224, led among female students indicated that 36.3% of the sample did not know that abortion was illegal !! Is that even imaginable? It looks like it is, and it’s probably due to a political will to not talk to the public about this topic. Abortion is simply one of numerous taboo subjects in Korea. One among so many others…

It’s also very interesting to note that there are very few people sentenced for having violated abortion laws. Jurisprudence shows that abortion is only very rarely punished (45 cases in 1990, only 5 sentenced). And there’s a reason for it! If there really are as many abortions as estimated, judging several hundred thousand people would just be impossible. And you would still need to catch them anyway.

But this split between theory and practice does not seem to incite the Korean government to change anything in this matter. Lee Myung-bak’s government is far too demagogical to start going against anti-abortion lobbies and possibly damage his family man image.

As a result, Korean women have no other choice than having a ‘semi-clandestine’ abortion (in fact, these abortions are only clandestine by name (as far as authorities are concerned) since they are carried out in a hospital) until a possible revision of the law; when it will have become so obsolete (which it already is) that politicians will have no other choice than to eventually officialize a practice already widespread in society.

A 2003 survey with people in their 20s and 30s confirmed these practices and the discrepancy between public opinion and the law. It indicates that 72.1% of women and 65.4% of men could carry out an abortion depending on the circumstances (that is, other then the ones presently authorized by law); and another 2003 survey with the general public finds a rate of 73.7%.

Of course, a possible legalization of abortion goes hand in hand with a proper sexual education and efficient contraceptive means, which is probably not the case in Korea these days. I might come back to these points later in a different article.

As to who practices abortion, studies show that most are married women, and that the first reason that is given is failure of contraception in almost 60% of the cases. We can wonder how these figures are obtained given the sensitive nature of the subject…but since in Korea, the only persons supposed to have sex are married couples, such results might be unavoidable, even if the reality on the ground about sexual practices of the young population are probably different.

There’s one very important reason that leads Korean couples into having an abortion. This reason is the vital importance, still today, of having a son. Korean society is generally considered as being the one most influenced by Confucianism. To make a long story short (because once you start talking about Confucianism it’s hard to stop, and it’s not he aim of this post), a family lineage is transmitted through the eldest son (patrilineal descent), who will be in charge of practicing the ancestors’ rites (of his own family) when his father passes away.

So, to perpetuate both the family lineage and Confucian rites, a son is necessary. Women do not take part to them, only from afar, by preparing all the required food for them to take place. A family without a male descendant will be unable to take care of the well-being of the ancestors’ spirits (and, as a result, also of the livings’, because they can behave with evil intentions is not taken care of properly – which is an important source of work for shamans in Korea, so that they quiet down unpleased spirits), and runs the risk to see its branch die away. This would be an unbearable situation for many Koreans, because the family lineage is almost a sacred concept, and at the origin of proud or shame (illustrious ancestor = proud; bad ancestor = shame)

As a consequence, we can logically expect some influence on the number of abortions regarding female foetuses. And we do observer this directly by having a look at the number of annual births over time, and particularly when looking at the proportion of male and female births. For the first babies born in a couple, we observe the following evolution: in 1981, there were 107.1 baby boys for 100 girls, but if we look at the fourth child this figure rises to 112.9; ten years later, in 1990, the rate for the first child is 116.5 and 209.5 for the fourth child, which indicates about twice as many boys as girls for the fourth child. This rate has fallen since, but is always in favor of baby boys (in 1007, 106.2 for the first child, and 119.1 for the fourth).

In other words, since such an imbalance cannot statistically exist in nature, its origin is to be found in the abortion of female fetuses. We should note that gynecologists obstetricians are still forbidden nowadays to let know the sex of the baby to the parents, because of the higher risk of abortion when the foetus is female. That’s in theory, because it’s similar to what can be seen for abortion practices, on the ground everyone (the medics) behaves more or less as they please. It goes without saying that the high abortion rate in Korea is not the preferred topic of Korean politicians, and that it’s somehow taboo. This is not a very good sign for those who hope for a decline in the number of abortions.
Of course, such a decline has first to go through better sexual education and better psychological and material conditions when it comes to contraceptive techniques and practices. But it probably also has to go through changes in gender relationships and in a different vision of everything that has to do with sex, a traditionally taboo topic in Korea. I should come back to this topic at a later date, in particular contraception and sexual education.

Those who want to have an abortion will always manage to have it done, be it in good or bad conditions. Criminalizing abortion not only fails to reach its objective (we can see this with the case of Korea), a decline in the number of abortions, but also implies an excessive feeling of guilt from the part of the often distressed mother, and possible negative consequences for her health during such a procedure.
All societies that legalized abortion never intended to incite women to abort, but to make this experience less painful, physically and psychologically, and to officialize practices widespread among the public. When might Korea make it legal? Since everything goes fast in Korea, you never know, but in any case, not with the present government, who has other fishes to fry and is very unlikely to go against its own electors.

Korea's democracy in danger -Letter to the President

Hello everyone (anybody there?),

When I started this blog, I didn’t think I would get to write about politics. As it happens, it looks pretty much like I couldn’t help but write something that might be considered as such. But hey! First, this is my own little baby blog, and second, politics is not only about left versus right, communism versus capitalism or trying to get elected. Politics is about good government, and when we talk about a democratic system, it is about a government of the people by the people for the good of the country and its citizens. Therefore, politics is about life, about civil liberties and about everything that allows a people to live together, and so much more. In that sense, I might have been writing about politics even from the start of this blog (without even realizing it…).

So, to come back to my little contribution to Korean politics, I happened to write a letter to the Korean President (I remind you it’s NOT Kim Jong-il…hem…) a few days ago and had it published in the Korean online newspaper “Ohmynews”, with a little preamble exposing why I felt the urge to sent this letter.

For those of you interested, here’s the link to the newspaper. It’s written in Korean. My Korean language skills are not too bad, but my wife helped me a lot in correcting mistakes, especially when translating the letter itself (more so than the pre-letter section, which is less complicated). The letter, in English, is in the second section. Just click here.

I wrote and sent this letter in English because I wanted to control what was being said and how it was said. Obviously, one does not write the same way when writing to a President, so writing in Korean would have meant, for me, because of my still-to-be-improved-Korean-skills, some loss of control from my part on the content, and I did not want that.
In addition, the present Government has placed so much emphasis on the importance of English education at school that it is only fair to email them in English, in order to check whether they would respond to it.

So, to go back to the main story.

As some of you must know, a guy using the nickname “Minerva” has recently been arrested by the Korean authorities on charges of spreading false information on the internet about the government policies.

Here is a link to Reuters, summarizing the case, as well as from Reporters without Borders.

This person happens to be unemployed, in his thirties, and to have near to no education in economics, or in not much else, but claims he was interested in/passioned by economy since middle school. He did several predictions on his blog about the economy and the government policies that happened to be true. Needless to say that his predictions were about things that were going to go wrong, like a fall in the stockmarket and in the won, predictions that did not go too well with the present Government, given the dire economic situation worlwide.

This Minerva also claimed to be a specialist in economy and finance while it seems he wasn’t. Those of you who know Korea a bit, in particular those who have lived in Korea, will know how important education is for every Korean, and how different people will consider you depending whether you are highly educated or not. A university professor will have one of the highest status in Korean society, while someone like our guy, “Minerva”, will just be a nobody.
Based on this knowledge, it is not surprising to hear that he lied about his background, otherwise nobody would have even thought giving any sort of consideration to his articles.

The reality is that after having a few “predictions” right, more people started paying very close attention to his writings, believing he was some kind of retired financial expert, when he wasn’t.

What is important to mention is the fact that, as far as I know, he was not earning a living with his articles, and did not commit any fraud, but that he has just been arrested on charges of advancing falsehood on the Internet.
Basically, it is just like anybody writing a blog and expressing views about the economy of a country, getting facts wrong or even having fun and inventing what is going to happen or pretend to know what the government economic policy is going to be, and be arrested for it.

How cool is that?

Let’s have a look at his mischieval behavior :
- He used a nickname and not his real one. How surprising for a blog?!
- He then got some facts wrong. What about the Korean president predicting at first a 7% growth, or so, before being elected and now warning growth could be near 0%, or that Korea could even face a recession in 2009. Bring the charges!
- He lied about the government policies, spreading rumours. Well, since he’s just a basic citizen, is he not entitled to say whatever he wants about this kind of things? If some people, including people in the Korean government, are stupid enough to believe anything that is written in a blog whose author is anonymous, I think it is their responsibility first and foremost to use their analytical skills (if they have any – looks like some people don’t know the meaning of “being critical”) to judge whether it is reasonable to believe in the economic predictions of some anonymous blogger. To me it sounds, as least, unreasonable and foolish.
- He lied about his background. Oh… And…you mean…I can get arrested for that? So what if I say I can speak perfect Korean on my resumé? Does it count as a lie or not ?… I guess the police is going to be busy in the near future then.

Minerva is also blamed by some (extremely unreasonable) parties for the government loss of about 2 billion dollars on the currency exchange market, because he supposedly influenced the market so much by spreading rumours that people would have sold the Korean currency and buy dollars in vast quantities to protect themselves from a hard fall, provoking the fall of the Korean currency (most Korean financial analysts say this is just not possible, even if nobody denies he had some influence).

In short, the main issue about this case is freedom of expression and civil liberties. If the Korean government starts arresting people because of what they say or write in their blogs or elsewhere, it basically means a return to “traditional” Korean authoritarian regimes of the past. Do Koreans want that? No. Not one of them. Except maybe those whose interest it is to keep people under control so that they can better exploit them, ie. politicians in power and their friends in business.

This case is extremely serious. If I didn’t think it were, I would not be writing this post.

Below follows my letter. As it stands, it seems it hasn’t even been read yet(was sent on the 12th of January). If by tomorrow this email is not opened, I will (re)send it through recorded physical mail this time.

I know many people might think there is no point in doing such things. But they would be wrong. Through this letter, and through its publication in the online Korean newspaper “Ohmynews”, it seems it has contributed to stimulating the debate over this issue even more. It is indeed a hot issue in Korea, with or without this letter, but if can contribute to add just a little bit more pressure through this action, or incite people to be more active citizens, I think it will have been worthwhile.

Do not hesitate to spread the word. Not about this letter in particular of course, but about this Minerva case. Every one of us, foreigner or not, living in Korea or not, is concerned by this case.

Anyway, here is the beast:


Dear Mr President,

I am taking the time to write this letter because I am very concerned about the development of a case that has been reported in the news these last few days.

I am referring here to the "Minerva" case.

I am deeply troubled by the fact that a person could be arrested on charges of supposedly advancing false arguments in one of his articles.

If Korea claims to be a democracy, it surely cannot arrest anybody on account of such charges. If it does arrest people in this manner, it will therefore mean that the Goverment of South Korea has decided to ignore the rule of law and freedom of speech, which is inscribed in the Korean Constitution itself.

I have the right, if I choose so, to express an opinion that might be against the government policy, or that might be wrong. I even have the right, as a private individual, to tell wrong facts about the government policies as long as I am not expressing these views to operate some fraud. After all, many people spend their whole life lying by omission, especially in business and politics, and never get arrested. People are free to listen, or not to listen, to any views, and to consider or not to consider them. But to arrest someone because of what he has written is, without a doubt, a return to authoritarian practices not worthy of the great country that is the Republic of Korea.

If people were to be arrested on this basis, the present Korean Government would probably need to arrest, or investigate, thousands of people expressing personal views displeasing some government officials. Since Korea prouds itself in being a vibrant democracy, there can be no such thing as an arrest on the basis of some personal view expressed, because the power of any democracy resides in its ability to allow all kinds of dialogues to take place and all kinds of views to be expressed and, in particular, views that oppose Government policies and that are the proof of a sane and dynamic democracy.

The power of a democracy resides in its people. I shall remind you of a few articles of the Korean Constitution, on which all laws that exist in Korea are based and which is the foundation of Korea's democratic system of government.

Chapter I - General Provisions
Article 1
(1) The Republic of Korea shall be a Democratic Republic
(2) The sovereignty of the Republic of Korea shall reside in the people, and all state authority shall emanate from the people.

Article 7
(1) All public officials shall be servants of the entire people and shall be responsible to the people.
(2) The status and political impartiality of public officials shall be guaranteed as prescribed by act.
(Source: "Labor Laws of Korea 2005" - Publisher: Ministry of Labor)

As you will have observed, and as you already know, the word "people" is the key word of these articles.
Therefore, when one "people" is arrested in the manner as "Minerva" has been, it has serious implications for all the other "people" of the Republic of Korea. Namely, the potential outstripping of their personal liberties.

Mr President, you have been elected by the people to serve the people. As previous events during your presidency have shown in 2008, your role is to serve the people as President, the most illustrious position any Korean can hope to reach through hard work, talent, dedication and personal sacrifice.

I have no doubt you are aware of the supreme honour that is being President of the great Korean people, and I also do not doubt that your life has been dedicated to the advancement and betterment of your country, like so many other hard-working Koreans of your generation. Ordinary citizens know this and are thankful to you for having fulfilled this task of the most honourable manner. Nonetheless, the events I was referring to at the beginning of this letter are worrying in the extreme, because they threaten one central tenet of a democracy: freedom of speech; the right of all individuals to express their views, be they for or against the government.

If that basic tenet becomes threatened, we will witness no less than a threat to democracy itself.

Mr President, it is the proof of a sane and vibrant democracy when opposing views can be expressed without fear of being arrested by the Government in place. If that were to disappear from the Korean political life, it would mean no less that a return to the days of authoritarian regimes that Koreans had to live through for many years and during which so many people suffered.

Please, do not impose on Koreans a return to darker days nobody really wishes for any more. Even though I am only an ignorant foreigner coming from France and living in Korea since 2002, and therefore I might not be someone to listen to when it comes to Korean internal matters, I am not ignorant in the principles of democracy. In that, you can trust me. That is why I am hoping your Government will eventualy realize it is not in Korea's interest to arrest people based on anything they might have said or written.

I might even say that it could be probably be considered anticonstitutional. Athough I am not myself a lawyer, please let me quote here again the beginning of another article of the Korean Constitution.

Chapter II - Rights and duties of citizens
Article 21
(1) All citizens shall enjoy freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly and association.
(2) Licensing or censorship of speech and the press, and licencing of assembly and association shall not be recognized.

Mr President, with all due respect to your position, I humbly urge you, for the sake of Korea's democracy and future among the democracies of this world, to consider this letter with all due attention, and take appropriate measures to ensure the fundamental right of freedom of speech is not trampled upon.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Respectfully yours,

Bruno Payen

KOREA REUNIFIED !!!

I've got A MAJOR news for you. Korea's reunification is not needed since it's already there for everyone to see.
I can imagine nobody is believing me but, really, that's too bad. Because if we just have a look at the Korean weather forecasts, it seems they know something we (I mean you) don't.

Here's a photograph of a recent (december 2008) KBS1 weather forecast:


And here's another one from MBC:


What do we see?
Well, it's clear to me that they are showing us the truth, ie. Korean reunification is something that's already happened. It's just that most people don't care about the (Korean) weather forecast, or they would be aware of this historical event (I suspect that's due to the fact they've been terribly wrong lately).

For those of you who don't see my point here(among those happy few who dare read me), let us be more precise.
As everybody can see on these photographs the forecast concerns the whole of the Korean peninsula, not just the southern part, which is supposed to be South Korea (official name: The Republic of Korea). There are no mentions of North Korea anywhere on the map, even though several temperatures in the part that corresponds to North Korea are clearly indicated.

In other words, the weather forecast acknowledge the physical existence of the North, as the northern part of the Korean peninsula, but does not seem to acknowledge its political existence. I haven't checked the weather forecast on all Korean channels, but I suspect it will be similar.

It becomes even more interesting if we have a look at maps appearing in books edited by Korean publishers (no need to mention I am not referring to North Korean publishers).

A little book that is regularly published and whose title is, ironically, "Facts about Korea", offers a few maps of the country. If you browse through the book you will get the following map of Korea:

This map is neither a map of the physical features of the Korean peninsula (ie. mountains, rivers, etc.), even though the main mountains are indicated in some sort of symbolic way, with nice little drawings, as well as rivers and some plains, nor a political map, or we would have more indications than just country names and Seoul as the one and only city around. But one thing is for sure: although neighboring countries are visible (China, Russia), North Korea is nowhere to be seen.

Other maps in this book offer the same view, with a recurrent feature that is the absence of the Northern neighbour.

Now, it could be that I was just unlucky and picked the wrong book. So I decided to enjoy a stay at the Kyobo bookstore (the biggest bookstore in Seoul), and browse through other books, and maps of Korea (by (South) Korean publishers, a very important point of course) to make sure I was not hallucinating or having preconceived ideas about what I had been suspecting for many years but had never taken the time to go and check up.

I suppose all of you already guessed what was the result of this little survey and you would be right (because you're all clever): there is NOT A SINGLE MAP of Korea that mentions the existence of North Korea (I should have mentioned her official name: Democratic Popular Republic of Korea).

And you will find me naive, but I found that, truly, AMAZING!!!

I mean, I discussed on many occasions the possibility of a future reunification between the North and the Sough with friends (Korean or not), family and Professors, and not once did this AMAZING fact come up.
I know...one explanation is that it's too obvious for them even for this fact to come to their mind.
Another explanation is what is commonly call "brainwash". y'Know what I mean?...

Hey! My intention here is not to be unkind to Koreans (I'd rather not or my wife will take revenge on me). But there must be a right explanation.

A bit later, as we were discussing various things with some friends, the topic came to my mind and I asked around. One person told me that this was not surprising for the very simple reason that the Korean constitution stipulates that the territory of the Republic of Korea comprises the whole of the Korean peninsula!

To make things clear and unquestionable, let me quote here the article this person was referring to. I've got my own collection of books on Korea and a few of them do have the Korean constitution translated in English. So here it is:
"Article 3 - The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean peninsula and its adjacent islands."
For those interested in reading the Korean consitution in its entirety(!!), just follow this link to the Constitutional Courts of Korea.

Right. We're starting to see things a little bit more clearly here.
Since the CONSTITUTION of South Korea itself includes a non-recognition of the Northern communist entity (because by including the totality of the Korean peninsula it subsequently makes impossible the existence of another political entity sharing the same area), it's somehow logical they would not care about mentioning it anywhere.

Or not?

Well, if it were in a country with more freedom of expression(ie. more than Korea), you would expect at least a handful of publishers to acknowledge the existence of North Korea in a few maps, at least for the sake of facts, because nobody can deny the de facto existence of North Korea. The reality on the ground is different, and here is why.

Apart from the part about the territory that is written in stone in the constitution (see above) and that prevents an ideological and even legal recognition of the North political existence, there is another law that is at the centre of this problem. It is called the National Security Act.
It is basically an anti-communist law that exists since 1948 and that has been used over and over again to restrict freedom of expression in Korea ever since. This law is used to counter any activity that is pro-communist, pro-North Korea etc, and that could "endanger" South Korea.
Since its application and interpretation is very wide, it can be used in a lot of different cases and is very practical for governments who whish to limit citizen power and have a free-hand at doing what they want. Those interested can have a look here at an English version (could not find an offical English version - maybe not a coincidence?) or here for the Korean version (the courageous ones!).

Throught the combination of these two laws, one constitutional, one making people criminals and traitors, it is therefore not surprising to observe the total absence of maps even only mentioning North Korea, because it might imply a potential condemnation for the publisher (condemnations include jail sentence and, in theory, even death penalty).

This problem of non-recognition of North Korea as a political entity is very serious for many reasons. The most important one being probably that if there is any hope to reunite the North and the South, I cannot see how it can possibly be done since it does not make much sense wanting to unite one part with another that does not exist.

This absurd position obviously does not make sense for the successive Korean governments either, because they have been trying to negotiate for many years on several fronts with North Korea, notably during the six-party talks with both Koreas (South Korea and the one that does not exist), The US, Japan, Russia, China and Japan.

I cannot see such a paradoxical situation leading to any kind of serious rapprochement between both Koreas. As long as the fundamental tenet of South Korea's existence (its territory being the whole of the Korean peninsula) is there, the only way through which reunification could be achieved would be through war or total disintegration of the North. And that is not going to happen any time soon.

Until the presidency of Kim Dae-jung and his Sunshine policy of rapprochement towards the North, I believe the only strategy of reunification that led the successive Korean governements had been a policy of reunification through "assimilation". Certainly the only valid policy when we consider the article 3 of the Korean constitution...

In adddition to that, the newly acquired status of South Korea among rich nations often means that the attitude of the South Korean government can easily become patronizing. Needless to stay that that is insulting to North Koreans in general and, in the end, counter-productive to any attempt made to improve diplomatic relationships (which, in theory, cannot exist).

Like many other things in Korea, this situation is paradoxical. That is the heritage of the cold war, of course, but present and future Korean governments had better understand they have everything to gain from recognizing North Korea existence and giving more freedom to the people. They are not going to be able to achieve much by staying in a state of denial.

That is all for this post.
Oh! There's one thing I'm not too sure of, it is who, concretely, can be held guilty under the National Security Act. It surely depends on the context. Will I have to face the death penalty for writing what could be considered anti-government posts? Am I a threat to South Korea? Hu Hu...Quick, let's press DELETE!

Oh! And before I forget... HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Classical Music and bad guys

What the?....
Hmm...I can already imagine perplexed faces and minds at the look of this title. What on earth can we say about the subject that might be interesting at all?
Well, if you happen to think like this then I am sorry to say that you would just be plain wrong. And if you want to know what it is that can be of any interest, I'm also afraid you'll have to read this post. What a shame indeed...

Right. So, what's the story?

During my many years in Korea (I'm here since the fall of 2002, which is less than some but more than most) I could watch several "dramas" - these very popular Korean soaps about which I'll need to write something some day - and, at some point, I realized something quite amazing (to me, at least):

Most of the time, characters who like classical music are the bad guys.

No kidding.
Now, when I say "bad guys", it doesn't actually mean gangster, thief or serial killer. "Bad guy" here means someone who's just mean, pretentious, arrogant, totally unscrupulous, greedy, who's never heard the words "fair play", who's condescending and, last but not least...rich. (I might have forgotten a few.)

I know, it sounds unfair for classical music fans, but if they don't watch these soaps they will be OK.

It actually took me a while to realize this. But, time and time again, after seeing that the son of a b.... who had just plotted to make sure his girlfriend's ex-boyfriend and all his extended family would burn in hell (or remain poor, ill and depressed) for the next 25 generations in order for him to be sure he would not feel threatened in any way, constantly listened to CLASSICAL MUSIC, I realized how evil Mozart and his whole work actually were.
It is certain that if I would go on watching these dramas a consequent number of years, I might end up thinking like this(that's scary).

For sure, I'm slightly exaggerating here, but only when it comes to the scale of it, not the basic tenet of this post.

So what's so evil about Mozart, Beethoven and Co?

You're sure you really want to know the answer?
All right. I'll tell you, but don't tell anybody.

When these dramas associate bad guys and classical music, they criticize their very own society, upper class and fantasies you can find anywhere, and all the time, in the Korean society about "the West".

To understand how I see this mechanism operating, I have to go through some more explanation.

After the Korean War ended (1950-1953), Korea was a ravaged country and the process to rebuild South Korea was carried out with the assistance of the US (the ideological background means that the US help to Korea should never be understood as just benevolent. It never was only that and never will be. Korea's location (the Korean peninsula) is too important geostrategically speaking (land border with China and Russia, Japan being a very close neighbour) to let it in the hands of the communist ennemy. At least that's basically what the American approach has been. Helping Korea was important to the US policy of containment - Let me also add that it's the same when it comes to any diplomatic relationship. No country offers anything for free to any other country. There's always something in return, even if it is "just" political influence behind the scene. So this comment can be extended to any other country "helping" another one.)

This means that in Korea, for many years and still nowadays, "the West" has been synomymous with "America", because of the overwhelming US presence and influence in this country, and that Korea's model has been, and still is, the US, in all aspects. Whether it about economy, education, movies, politics, etc. anything and everything is more or less copied on, or inspired from, the US, and that includes classical music.

Granted, as we all know classical music is not American in the first place, but European. But since, for most Koreans, everything Western comes, directly or indirectly, from the US, it might be fair to say that for most of them it does not make much of a difference.
At the same time, classical music does have an elite image. It's not like Pop or Rock music, that are associated with people in the streets, noise, spontaneity and raw energy. Classical music has its public, that is usually cleaner, more quiet and, more often than not, older and richer.

Of course, you will always find young people in love with classical music, there's nothing wrong with that, but, on the whole, its public is more like the one described above than the kind you find at Woodstock-like events.

In any case, since the US (aka. the West) is the role model for all of Korea, upper class koreans send their kids to international schools and to the best US universities, they place emphasis on speaking fluent (American) English, and on knowing American culture and, subsequently, are keen to like, or to show they like(quite different), elitist American culture, which, for historical reasons, includes European bits and pieces, such as classical music.

Since the image of classical music is linked to some sort of elitism, which is the case in Korea, it also means it can have quite a negative image among regular Koreans and that people liking it can be viewed as pretentious snobs, through association.

But in more general terms, it's also possible to say that showing a taste for things Western is very often associated with pretension. Let's say just like when English speakers use a lot of French expressions when speaking, or when French people mix too many English. It has a similar effect. N'est-ce pas?

A typical example of that in one Korean drama/soap would be a scene taking place in an expensive French restaurant (with a French sommelier speaking English with a very strong accent) with a background of classical music and Royal-like curtains around.

Of course, being pretentious might not be the ultimate sin, but it is very close in Korea, where everyone should behave himself/herself modestly, whatever the circumstances. So a rich person who does not, will be perceived very negatively.

I should add that there's also another very important factor that comes into play here, and it is the nationalist and "groupist" bit.

Since classical music comes from the West, it is, by essence, not Korean, and someone who happens to prefer things foreign to Korean ones somehow commits an horrible crime. It can sometimes be felt like some kind of treason towards the group. (just have a look at the (extremely low) percentage of foreign cars in Korea.)

Koreans operate first as members of a group, the individual only comes second. They define themselves as members of several groups that go from the smallest to the widest possible, like for example, russian dolls.

I can illustrate this in the following way :
First group : parents and family
Second: school year
Third: Village/City
Fourth: Region
Fifth: Company
Sixth: Country

Sometimes, you can read that it's the opposite order, ie. from country to family, but family is definitely the starting point.
This succession of groups should not be understood as fixed or without mistakes. I obviously cannot list all the potential groups you can find in Korea (and there are a lot!) In addition, geographical (eg. village) and temporal (eg. school) groups are of course not incompatible, someone is always a member of several groups at the same time.

This preference given to groups is often a big problem. One form it takes is regionalism. It can manifest itself in amazing ways, like in elections for example, when a candidate can garner more than 90% (really) of the votes from his hometown/region.

Anyway, it seems I'm starting to stray too much from the subject now, but, since everything is related, I think this addition was necessary.

In conclusion? Well, is there one? Well, next time you see a Korean soap, pay attention to see whether I've been talking nonsense here. That will be my reward, and yours.

Writing this, I also thought about the image of classical music in soaps/movies in the West.
I remember watching Smallville (the young Superman series) and the great bad guys, ie. Lex Luthor and his father Lionel, were also listening to classical music (not the other ones, and good, characters).
I also have the image, don't know from which movie, of a killer listening to classical music (well Stanley Kubrick's "Clockwork Orange" seems to fit)...looks like classical music and psychopaths are a good fit in popular Western imagery...

Don't know where that comes from...maybe from the image of Wagner associated with Nazi Germany?? I wonder...any thoughts welcome!

How come ALL (english-speaking) bloggers on Korea are English teachers???

I found a website referencing all blogs in English related to Korea. It's called The Korean Blog List. I suppose lots of people are already aware of this site and so this news might not be so useful to all potential readers of my blog, BUT since it's new to ME (I'm not spending nights surfing those) I thought I would share the information and add a comment or two about something else.

First things first. Congrats to the creator of this site!
But then, something troubles me.
This website says they add blogs if mote than 50% of it is written in English...Hmm...What about, say, JUST 50%. No more, no less, like here for example. Would I deserve the honour to be added to this listing? Hmm...and what if I wrote an additional sentence (or word?) JUST for the english posts? For sure that would make it like 50.01% in English, ie. more than the 50% limit, right?

So. That was my first comment. But hold on, my SECOND comment is going to be much more interesting(I guarantee it).
It's actually related to this Korean blog list website.
I'm glad somebody took the time to create such a website. It allows you to have a very interesting view of some of the people who live in Korea.

I know, it's only about English speakers who happen to write blogs, and therefore it's skewed from the start as a representative sample(I'm actually serious here), but who cares? It's still amazing to see that almost all these bloggers share a common characteristic : THEY TEACH ENGLISH IN KOREA. Yep. English. If you happen to read this and live in Korea, you know what I'm talking about, but what about the ones who do not know the horrible truth? Hmm? Did anybody think about these poor souls living somewhere outside Korea? I can't even start imagining it...

So, to come back to my point.

It's something I had always suspected, but after taking a look at half a dozen blogs (and regularly checking more), this was easily confirmed. All the guys and gals' blogs were teaching English in Korea in language institutes, schools, or universities.

Now, please understand that when I say "teaching English in Korea", I don't actually mean they are certified "teachers", even if some are. It should be understood that these bloggers are (usually) native English speakers (it helps to be white if you want to get an English teaching position in Korea), preferably from the US (other accents are not so positively viewed over here) and, for many of them, without any particular experience in teaching English as a Foreign Language.

It is quite extraordinary to observe that in most cases, if you come to live in Korea and are a native speaker of English, you are 90% likely to "end up" teaching English in Korea. It certainly means something, right?
I mean, I know I can't compare situations easily, but let's say I have a look at blogs written in English by bloggers living in Europe, in non-english speaking countries(all but the UK and Ireland), I don't expect them all to be teaching English, and I'm pretty sure I would be right.

So what does that tell us? That it's cool to teach English in Korea? Or that English teachers in Korea are killing/deporting the bloggers who are not like them, and therefore preventing the development of blogs by other professions?... The last possibility sounds interesting, but it's more likely that it's linked to some Korean characteristic rather than our blogger-friends' murdurous instincts.

Koreans are obsessed with education. They see it as a way to climb up the ladder of success and social class, and they are ready to literally ruin themselves so that their kids can get the best education they can afford. And it starts from very very young ages. I suppose Koreans are right to see education in a positive light, who wouldn't?, but because it is a real obsession, it means competition is extremely harsh.

Because of this very competitive environment, Koreans have set up in place a whole range of filters to select only "the best", and one of these filters towards getting a good job is one's fluency in English. As a result, every Korean is brainwashed from early childhood into thinking he/she cannot live without English, and they spend tremendous amounts of time learning it. They don't always succeed, granted, but consequently this obsession means demand for native English teachers is extremely high and that any native speaker of English with a basic education can become an "English Teacher" in Korea. Maybe not in a university or in a good language institute, that's possible, but for sure he/she will be able to find a teaching position rather easily with a decent salary. For someone who's just looking for some experience abroad, in an exotic country, that's more than enough for a while.

Actually, I say native speaker, but since "native English speaker" is synonymous with "white face" in Korea, it means loads of non-natives are in teaching positions in loads of language schools. Certainly not the best ones, for sure, but introduced as natives anyway. That's a total sham.
I'm not imagining things, all the people I know who are "white" (you can call them "Caucasian" if you wish) have been teaching English in one of these institutes posing as native speakers. For information, among these people you had people from Poland, Bulgaria, Belgium, Uzbekistan, Russia, Scandinavian countries, France, Brazil...

For those who wonder, I'm not criticizing the teachers mentioned here, or their level of English, everybody needs money to live, but the whole process in general and the schools in particular. The institutes that employ them usually know they are not natives, but since they advertise native teachers they have to find people who fit the image of the native english speaker in Koreans' heads, ie. whites. And we know that learning a language from natives costs/earns more money than not, therefore it is a total sham.

That's really a problem in Korea, because the Korean government wants to press people into learning even more English. At some point, they had even planned to have math classes in high school taught in English. I mean, how absurd is that? Does anybody imagine Uk/US students taking a math class in French? It would be a nightmare for most(all!). Anybody thinks it's a bad comparison? Let me know why.

Is English important in our globalized world?
Sure it is.
Does it mean every Koreans should feel obliged to learn English till they drop?
Nope.
Why not?
Very simple. In practice, most Koreans will simply not have the need to speak fluent English throughout their life. If they go abroad, then they will be able handle most situations through the use of broken english, sign language, smiles, tries and errors, and other creative methods. But for their day to day activities and job, very few of them will need to speak good English on a regular basis. The reality on the ground is that some people fluent in English take care of business activities in English, and the rest take care of the daily company routine. Nothing surprising about that.

Trying to persuade Koreans that all of them need to work hard on their English for their own good is not simply counter productive but a total fantasy, because English and Korean languages are too far apart to have people learn each other languages easily. Any English speaker who's tried to learn Korean would confirm.

In any case, this is not the only reason why 99% or so english speaking bloggers about Korea are English teachers. Another reason must have something to do with the immigration policy of the government. It's certainly relatively easy to get a teaching visa, but not so to exert another activity if you're not 'sponsored' by a Korean company.

Cars and colours in Korea

Let's start with a topic everyone knows something about : cars.
What about them? Well, if you haven't visited Korea yet, here's what it is about them : in Korea almost all cars are either:
- white
- grey
- black
- any shade of the preceding non-colours

A little picture to illustrate this (this photograph, not from me, can be seen in context on the Korea Times online, here) :



OK. Let's be honest. It's true you sometime find a car whose colour is dark-blue, or marine blue (the same thing?), or some kind of dirty brown, but that's about it. No bright or even nice colours. None. Nada. Niente.
Why is that?
Hmm... I guess it's rather difficult to find a clear and definite answer to this question, but here is my interpretation.

We may better understand this phenomenon - I call it a phenomenon because for me it's clear it's quite peculiar. You don't really find this in Europe or the West in general, and I think also not in Japan - by having a more precise look at cars, vehicles, that appear to be coloured. I know I just mentioned that all cars are kind of monochromatic over here, but I should have mentioned "personal cars", because when you actually have a look around in Seoul, you will see in fact a lot of coloured cars, coloured vehicles, but all (most) of them, are not "personal cars" but either:
- trucks : construction trucks, firemen, etc.
- buses : all school buses are yellow - I mean ALL! to the point that it makes me wonder whether it's mandatory...and other ones are either green or blue.
- any kind of utility vehicles with some kind of "function". In other words, vehicles that are not of a personal use, but rather that are used by some kind of organization, institution or company. For example, cars from the City of Seoul, police cars, cars from any company as a way to advertise the company's services, etc.

There might be other examples that do not come to my mind at the moment, but you probably get the picture.

The main reason Koreans do not wish to have a coloured car is because they think it will make them stand out of the crowd, and that's something Koreans really do not want. Why not? Well, for one, standing out means being potentially open to criticism, and with the mentality of collectivism that dominates all aspects of Korean culture, everyone should do his/her utmost to be a member of the collectivity without creating any disturbances. And having a coloured car definitely creates something to look at. ie. something that can be a potential target for comments, be they positive or negative.

Since all cars are monochromatic, having for example a red car means people will see it much more than if it's white or grey, and so might (will) wonder why you departed from the norm; and departing from the norm can raise questions about you as a good, well-behaved member of society. As a result it can have some threatening, even if unconscious, effect on the collectivity as a whole and mean the owner of the red car will probably have to face more criticism than if the car were plain white. And who likes being the target of (potential) criticism?

This means that when you do have coloured cars (yes, you CAN actually find some), they are always almost (personal) cars whose aim is to display somebody's status. Sports cars are the best example. Of course, as we all know, it's not just in Korea that sports car are red (thank you Ferrari), but it certainly is a Korean exception that no middle-of-the range cars are coloured.
For example, a few foreign carmakers that are playing on this status image in Korea are Peugeot (Peugeot 206 range) and Volkswagen (with the Beetle). They target young and cool (and well-off) audiences who wish to project a fashionable image. In these cases the colour of the car fits with the image that the car projects.

Oh! I am forgetting something hugely inportant.
There ARE coloured cars that are not status cars (hmm...) and that are not vehicles with some kind of function. But you know what? It's quite interesting, because these cars are at the opposite range of the status cars mentioned above. Yes. The cheapest, and smallest, cars are often (always?) coloured ones. Isn't that great?
The cars displaying the lowest and the highest status can be found in colour, but not the other ones. It speaks volume about the vital importance of status in Korea, a subject that will certainly constantly come back in these posts.

Knowing that having a (small) coloured personal car displays to the world that you basically haven't got the money to buy a better (ie. bigger) one, why would anyone want to buy these? Well, for one, those who really haven't got the money, and, second, those who are not supposed to mind driving them because it fits with what people think about them, in other words, usually young female drivers; probably because cars are mainly a man’s thing in Korea, rather than a woman’s (but certainly not just in Korea). These cars can actually also be in some cases, status cars. But 'status' here is to be understood as 'cute'. Just like when you watch a little kid driving a car-toy.

I am quite serious here. The Korean society is a very macho, a male oriented society, and this remark will not surprise someone familiar with the culture. Women are more expected to play the cute role and be quiet rather than the opposite. Therefore it fits with the image of the cute little coloured car I am talking about. But I'll certainly have to come back to the place of women in Korean society in later posts. There's too much to say about this subject to afford not writing about it seriously enough.

I almost forgot. We can also find another type of drivers that drive these little cars. They are civil servants and company employees. The main reason for the use of these vehicles is linked to limited budgets. Since they are the cheapest cars, they are very economical for companies that have to provide cars to some of their employees or to a government with a small budget.

These remarks about colour do not actually mean that all status cars are coloured, because, in general, they are not anyway. Having a look at the most expensive cars in the Korean car market, we see that they are usually black, big, and with a chauffeur (not provided).
One of the largest Korean car is called "Chairman" or "new Chairman". And you know what? It really looks like they are targeting Korean CEOs. These are cars, literally, for "Chairmen". I know, it sounds quite depressing, and certainly is, from a non-Korean point of view (and probably also from a Korean one), but it all has to do with the importance of making sure people know your status straightaway, so that you get the attention, and the respect, you "deserve" as chairman of this or that company. Status, status, status, and status. Nothing else, nothing more. Do not think it's my obsession here, it's just that it's such a dominant element of Korean society that you cannot escape from it.

Cars and status are not something unique to Korea. In every country every given car has a precise status, a precise image, but it is certain that it is working quite differently in Korea. Belonging to a certain social class in (Western) Europe does not mean that you must buy a certain type of car. There are a whole series of factors that affect what car you buy and what colour you are interested in, but, in the end, the society at large will not pressure the potential buyer into getting a precise model. In Korea, the general feeling is that you should drive a car appropriate to your class. ie. driving a bottom-of-the-range car while belonging to the upper class is a big no-no, and driving a yellow beetle if you're professor of French at Seoul National University would be most inappropriate (that is, if you are a male and Korean).

Coming back to the non-personal cars, it is interesting to mention taxis.
Strangely enough, and I will take that as an exception, Korean taxis are usually grey, white or black. Well, I say "strangely enough", but it actually fits with the rest of my interpretation of this phenomenon, for the simple reason that a person who takes a taxi might wish to be discrete the same way he/she is when taking his/her own car, since it basically has the same purpose: discrete personal transportation.
It is also important to note that, in Seoul, you have basically two different kinds of taxis, the regular ones, that look like any ordinary car mentioned previously (the black and white personal ones), and the "deluxe" ones, that are actually quite different. How are they different? Well, it is revealing to observe that these "deluxe" taxis are ALL, with no exception whatsoever, black. What a coincidence. It fits with my previous comment about the top of the range cars, which also happen to be black.

To end this post here, let me go back to this rule of (non) colour. Let's make things clear, you will always have exceptions to this, but, as we say in French, the exception confirms the rule, and if anybody disagrees I would be glad to hear other arguments on the subject, anytime (as soon as there will be people reading my posts...hem...).

Well, well, well!

Korea. Who even knows where it is? I mean... I do, but do you? You probably do if you're reading this, but most people don't, they think it's somewhere in south-east Asia, close to Vietnam, that it's a tropical climate and that's it's some kind of third world country. Hmm... don't laugh, I found this kind of mistake in venerable newspapers such as the Financial Times and others, so what about Mr. Everybody/Nobody?
Well, well, well, let's not just be too harsh on people, they've got excuses...or at least they should, right? But again, maybe not.
Don't expect to read a too well-behaved blog. It might end up like one, nothing is for sure yet, but I intend to write however I want about whatever things that are happening over here (ie. Korea, remember?). That's the deal. Nothing revolutionary here, as it's the nature of blogs.

- Hmm... What's this thing about "Nouga". Is this blog going to be about French sweets? Nope. Not really. You should know if you speak Korean. If you don't, tough luck. You'll have to find a dictionary or a friend who does.

- Do I reply to emails? Depends if I've got more than one reader I suppose.

- OK, so what's the deal with the bilingual bit? Well, because I felt like it and obviously wanted to show off a bit. No, seriously, because it would be too much work in five languages and my dutch is not so good yet. (humour anybody?)

- What about the topics? Hmm... As living in Korea as a foreigner (and non-asian looking) can sometimes (all the time?) be very challenging, and because, despite its Westernish aspect Korea is a really exotic country, far removed from what we know as Westerners, the topics are likely to be about things that are happening to someone like me (and my friends) who are living over here (yep, I'm living in Korea, Seoul), or things I see or I think. Nobody should believe what I write without fact-checking, even though I'm not going to invent any of the stuff I'm going to write about.

- So, do I hate Korea? Why? Should I? No, not at all. I'm not a Korea-bashing sort of guy, even though it might appear so depending on the subjects written about. It's easier to write about things that go wrong than about things that go right (anybody read newspapers/news?), so it's probable I will raise issues most of the time. I would write about things that go wrong in France, the UK or anywhere else if I happened to live in any of these countries and if I had a blog. Lucky for them, I live in Korea.

- Oh! And about translations, as I am the one writing, don't bother with potential comments such as "but it's different from what's written in French!" I am the author, so I do as I please. Everybody understood? Vive la différence! (what? don't tell me you can't read French? Tss tss... you're definitely a loser then - and, I know, this bit is not in the French version, so what?!)
-> So, let's go! Shijakhaza!