Fighteeng!

Korea’s latest penchant for its place among global rankings is of all things, as the Korea Times reports, corruption, in which,

“… According to Transparency International, Korea ranked 40th among 180 countries surveyed in the 2008 Corruption Perception Index.”

This is one of those rare rankings where Korea doesn’t want to be high on the list. I suppose being 40th was high enough, so what grand scheme does the government come up with to put this embarrassment behind them?  Oops, excuse me, embarrassment is a poor choice of words given what Lee Jae-oh, chairman of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, told reporters.

“We have to upgrade the ethics standards for public officials to meet growing public demand for a clean society… Such efforts are crucial for Korea to raise its global competitiveness and become an advanced country.”

OK, that’s a noble goal.  So here is Lee’s master plan to root out evil in government:

“The government will work with private institutes to develop a quantitative integrity evaluation system.  The integrity of more than 470 government agencies and public firms as well as 2,000 senior officials will be measured under the system…”

Hmm… well, I certainly appreciate the positive intentions, but developing your own domestic pro-corruption list so you can move down on the international anti-corruption list?  How does he figure?

“We will check the integrity level of every single public organization and senior official and share the data with the public. We think that’s the only way to build a clean society,” Lee said.

Uh… OK.   Is that truly the ONLY way?  Well, how about just enforcing the laws you already have?  That’d be a sure way to expose those without scruples.  Even so, how in the world would you objectively evaluate those that are paying your salary or worse paying you off to get a pass?  And why stop at 2000?   Just keep turning over every rock, I say.

This just reminds me of my high school, where the teacher would write names on the board of those who misbehaved enough to warrant an after school detention.  And every week, there was always a handful of people.  Sigh… Weird man… weird.

Wow, hard to believe that the Nobel prize has been awarded to Obama barely a year into office.  Would Kim Dae Jung, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 for his years of work reaching out to the North, have positive things to say about this if he had lived long enough to see this day?  Does Obama deserve it?

So I listened to Obama’s speech to see how he would justify accepting the award, and he had this to say:

“… And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.  And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.”

Hmm… sounds reasonable, but I wasn’t sure if that was consistent with the Nobel charter, so I headed over to wikipedia to find out what the criteria is that the prize panel uses to judge peace awards, which is:

“… the person shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”

Now whether you agree if this criteria is appropriate or not is a different matter, but clearly, it’s not just about quantity of accomplishments but also a more loosely worded “best work”.  I don’t know any of the other 200 or so odd nominations that might have been more deserving, but if apply Obama to these standards, then I think he passes with flying colors. Did Obama have the best work for fraternity between nations?  Check.  Did Obama reduce standing armies?  Check.  Did Obama hold meetings to promote peace?  Check.  No wonder Nobel’s official statement on their website states:

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Note that the committee uses the word “efforts” rather than “results”, which means to me that one’s courageous efforts can be just as useful to promote peace, regardless of accomplishments.

Kim Dae Jung was awarded for his tireless work in reconciling with North Korea as well, with unfortunately little to show for it.   Not to take away anything from the breakthrough negotiations, but even the secret millions paid to the North hasn’t reduced troop levels, nuclear testing, and a reciprocal visit.

Personally, I prefer not to dwell on the rhetoric of whether it was premature or deserved.  Whatever.  I think Obama will live up to the higher expectations that people have for him now that he has won this award, and I’m looking forward to seeing how the world changes for the better with Obama leading the way.

Holy cow! I can’t believe I’m reading this… the Chosun Ilbo got a copy of North Korea’s revised constitution, which I didn’t think anything ever needed revision up there given the dictatorship keeps its people stuck in the 1950s.   Turns out Dear Leader thinks that communism is not really turning out as he had hoped… uh..  it took him how many years to figure that out?

North Korean leader Kim Jong-il apparently explained the deletion of the word “communism” from the country’s constitution, which was revised in April. “It is difficult to comprehend communism. I will try to get socialism right,” Kim was reported as saying by a spokesman for the state-run Minju Chosun newspaper.

He’s going to try and get socialism right?  One, I don’t think he has much time left to try,  and two, who is he benchmarking his definition of socialism against?   USA?  Possibly, if he watches enough of the fair and balanced FOX News coverage of the healthcare debate.

The spokesman was talking to South Korean reporters on the sidelines of inter-Korean family reunions in Mt. Kumgang. “This is the reason behind the deletion of ‘communism’ from the constitution,” he said. “Communism is meant to be a one-class society where there is no distinction between exploiter and exploited, but that system cannot exist while American imperialism lasts.”

Huh?  So does that mean Dear Leader will put the communism words into the constitution back once he nukes the evil empire that is USA?  But if that ever happens, won’t he have achieved his goal of getting socialism right by that time?

Or maybe Dear Leader is just lobbying for some UN speech time, like this Gaddafi guy, who earned it by giving up his WMDs.

Well, whatever he finally ends up with will likely not do a darn thing to improve the lives of millions of his own starved, tortured, abused non-exploited citizens.  I don’t believe it when one of the changes also include this gem:

Clause 8 stipulates that it is the state’s responsibility to protect the human rights of citizens. The old constitution held the state responsible only for the people’s safety and welfare.

Ironically, these constitutional revisions allegedly occurred in April, which is around the same time when the two US journalists were captured by North Korean soldiers for spying. I think he’s defining human rights in proportion to how he will define socialism.

If anyone ought to be proficient in English, you’d think diplomats would certainly be.  That apparently isn’t the case in a revealing yet scathing editorial in the Dong-A Ilbo, titled “English Ineptness of Diplomats”.  Ouch.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell once expressed anger while in office, pledging never to meet again with Korea’s foreign minister. Powell could not converse with the Korean minister, who kept reading prepared memos. The minister was incapable of communicating in English despite being a career diplomat for more than 40 years. He responded to the criticism by claiming he prepared written speeches to more clearly communicate his message, but this episode remains a “notable incident” stemming from the poor English of Korean diplomats.

The editorial goes on to report that although the English requirement is higher for diplomats than other ministries, it doesn’t explain why the requirement is disregarded for a disturbingly high percentage of diplomats that score poorly.

“In all, 19.6 percent of the test takers failed to score level four, or a level ‘deemed enough for conducting diplomatic work seamlessly.’ In a TEPS test conducted on officials of Grade 5 or lower, 36 of 80 test takers got level five or failure.”

Even Ban Ki Moon, the UN secretary general, has weak English skills that hinders his job.

One clue might be what was uncovered in a similar editorial in the Chosun Ilbo that described the favorable bias that the domestic media has for its sports stars:

“Former prime minister and incumbent Korean ambassador to the U.S. Han Duck-soo once said it was difficult for him to be vocal when he knew there were so many people who were fluent in English.”

Ahh, so he’s carries an entourage of translators with him?  Or perhaps, the reason for the lack of English is even more appalling, that perhaps these diplomats aren’t really qualified to begin with (which suggests to me these appointments are just political rewards):

“Whether it is the mother tongue or a foreign language, content is what matters. Once a person is sure about what he or she wants to express, the words will come out. People who cannot speak either have nothing to say or do not know what to say.”

Whatever the case is here, there appears to be a market opportunity to train diplomats in English with more urgency than the pressure parents place on school kids.

Today’s editorial in the Korea Herald is yet another warning that Korea’s low birth rate is perilous for the growth of the country.  The author contends that the “male oriented corporate culture” compels women “to make a choice between family and career”, both of which are doomed because of the unique nature of Korea:

“In Korea, we have a particular phenomenon in which both none-working women — because of financial constraints – and working women – because of work constraints – are averse to having children.”

The author’s recommendation to this looming crisis is that “the government should encourage businesses to adopt and firmly implement family-friendly corporate environment”.

Well, this is all fine and good to help expectant mothers with benefits like actually offering paid family leave, except that the government itself has a “male oriented corporate culture”.  This is somewhat like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Curiously though, to justify government intervention into the boardroom, the editorial insists that “… society as whole should share in the responsibilities of raising children; only then will women be encouraged to have more children”.  But why limit the definition of society to changing a few bullet points in the HR manual?

Coming soon to a theater near you: Korean National Treasures: Waygooks On The Loose!

I prefer to define “society” more liberally.  The real answer of course – and I’m only half joking in a tongue-in-cheek way – was literally under the author’s nose.  Right next to the question “So, what is to be done?” was the banner advertisement claiming to be the “international Korean dating site” and adorned with the smiling Korean girl ready to be asked out. (How coincidentally convenient!  I won’t mention it by name, but you all know what I’m talking about… It’ll probably show up again if you’re a guy.)

Now I know this may sound like heresy to conservative Koreans, but relaxing immigration policy to increase population growth may do more than just putting on a prettier face.  In the United States, according to the right leaning, Negative Population Growth:

“… the Census Bureau has found that first-generation immigrants tend to have higher fertility rates than the native-born.  When the demographic contribution of immigrants and their descendants is combined, we find that immigration will account for about two-thirds of future U.S. population growth.”

I think most would agree that immigration in America has helped it become the superpower it is today through the diversity of its ideas and perspectives, so I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t benefit Korea.

Maybe a great way to start is to make it easier for those allegedly uncivilized English teachers chasing Korean women around at nightclubs to get on the fast track to marriage!!! Even Lee Eun-ung, the leader of the Anti-English Spectrum group and crusader against unqualified English teachers, admitted that most of them are smart, hard working and decent.

A Cabinet member was compelled to say that the low birth rate issue is “even more menacing and dangerous than a North Korean nuclear bomb”.  On that scale, then I think diluting the purity of the Korean blood making immigration and naturalization more open and accessible -  just a little faster and wider – for the sake of economic growth and global competitiveness is worth it.

Plus, it won’t be the first time that Koreans put economic growth ahead of other fears.  Look at how they voted in Lee Myung bak.