All around the news today..

-First up, the DPRK has officially announced Kim Jong-il as the "supreme leader" of the DPRK due to his position National Defense Commission. Kim Il Sung is currently the DPRK's eternal president just for random trivia.

-The Korea Times also has this laughably bad editorial by a guy named David Thiessen who proves that racism doesn't exist. His proof? The Bible states that we are all descendants of Adam so there is no race thus racism doesn't exist. The Korea Times generally has pretty decent and balanced editorials, what the hell happened here?

-The Hankyoreh has a short interview with Korean Democracy Government Employees’ Union (KDGEU) head about the merger with the KCTU. Unfortunately the article is really short and for some reason the article isn't sure if he is the leader if the KGEU or KDGEU.

-The Republic of Korea has a new Prime Minister now, Chung Un-chan who I talked about before. His election came with walkout of most of the opposition parties, including the conservative Liberty First Party. Chung is under fire for his switch of positions and ethics problems in his past. Some unity eh?

-A three day reunion between families separated by the South/North divide just ended.

Three Civil Service Unions join the KCTU...

Korean news has been in rage the last couple days over the decision of three major Civil Service unions to merge and join the KCTU. The government has been quick to react by warning that they will punish the unions for any illegal activities. Under Korean law, public employees are prevented from taking in collective action but they are allowed to join outside organizations creating these type of controversies.

Media reaction, to the shock of few, has been divided. The Korea Times has posted an excellent article on the subject noting the blatant hypocrisy when one considers that many government officials had no problems when unions joined the FKTU. They also point out that Korea's labor standards are abysmal not only by developed world standards, but by the standards set in the ILO that Korea is a member of.

From the conservative side, the Joongang Daily has a nasty response to the news, with this being my favorite part.

That the three unions pushed ahead to become the latest to join the KCTU can only mean that they sold the sacred spirit of public service for collective selfishness. We can see, through their thinly veiled cover, that the civil servants’ unions wanted to rely on the militant KCTU to realize their goals in issues like wage hikes and their opposition to pension reforms and to restructuring. The image of the public workers going on political strikes under the pro-North Korea, anti-America KCTU is enough to make us shudder. And it is precious tax money that people have shelled out to support public service that would instead be used for such strikes. That would be pathetic.

I don't know what is more hilarious; the fantasy idea that civil service has a "sacred spirit" that is above all pettiness or the fact that being anti-American is important to note on this issue. Aren't civil workers loyal to the government they working for above all else? Why would being anti-American a thing to note in this case?

For comparisons sake, laws on public workers doing collective action in the United States varies tremendously from state to state and type of employment (Railroad and Airline workers are different), but in theory public workers generally have the same rights under federal law (State law is different) as private workers. In practice, this of course means that most Unions negotiate the right to strike in their contracts and can only strike in very specific cases just like other workers. This is only at the federal level though and some states do ban collective action among public workers.

Government interference on union voting and multi-union bills brought up..

Public Services International, a global union federation of public workers, has sent out a press release complaining about the Korean government's interference with a few unions voting to join the KCTU.

The minister of Public Administration and Security has already sent down a “Directive on performance of duty regarding ballot on merger of 3 government employees unions” to government bodies including local governments. Through this directive, the Ministry has ordered government bodies to ban all kinds of union activities relating to the ballot, including voting during working hours and publicising the ballot. In addition, PSI has been informed of concerns about police raiding the voting areas.

This makes you wonder on how involved the government has been with the recent mass of secessions from the KCTU, doesn't it?

In other news, recent debate has flared up over some thirteen year old labor bills that have not been implemented yet. These bills will allow multiple unions join one workforce and prevent full-time union workers from getting payrolls from the company.

I am generally not a fan of full-time paid union officials at workplaces. From my experience, these officials generally do not advocate worker's positions very well and are the first to give in to management. I always thought the best union representatives are those who actually work at the place they are organizing at and are knowledgeable about the conditions their fellow workers are dealing with. I have less experience with this than other labor issues, so if anyone disagrees please feel free to comment on it.

I also have a strong distaste for multi-union setups at single workplaces. Most unions that operate on this organizing tactic are often some of the most corrupt, racist and sexist unions around. Many of the negative stereotypes associated with unions generally stem from these type of unions (not saying industrial unions have the same problem, but they are more common in craft union setup in my experience). It is also a nightmare to organize these type of workplaces as unions get into "turf" wars and not everyone operates on the same program. Workers are disconnected with other workers and its easier to play "divide and conquer" when trying to mobilize. The last thing Korean labor needs is more fractures in an already heavily sectarian movement

Reexaming the "Left/Right" paradigm in Korean history..

Recently, I have been reading Kim Ku's autobiography Paekpom Ilchi translated by Jongsoo Lee. In the introduction, Lee talks about how American historiography on Kim Ku has generally treated him as a member of the "far right" which misrepresents the political ideology of Kim Ku. This along with conversations with few of my friends have driven me to reexamine how the "left/right" diagram is generally treated in Korean history and the limitations of it.

When talking about the Korean independence movement and the years immediately following Korean independence, many American historians have separated the two groups into two camps, the left and right. The left normally refers to both Communists and left leaning nationalists such as Yo Un-hyung and Kim Won-bong. The left is generally categorized not only for its progressive political stances (mostly land reform, labor laws, ect) but as well for its tactics and strategy against Japanese colonialism. In contrast to the right, the left has generally been regarded as promoting more militant methods to fighting Japan and relying more on mass movements from the masses for support.

The right in contrast has been used to describe a section of the Korean independence movement that was not only more conservative in its political ideology, but completely different in its strategy on tactics. Believing that reform and raising national consciousness was the best way to achieve independence, they were more willing to compromise with Japanese leaders, a tactic that would hurt their reputation during the war years. The right also relied more heavily on support from outside groups and the elite of Korea, were venomously anti-communist and were more willing to let Japanese collaborators into the political structure. This is best laid out in the first volume of the Origins of the Korean War by Bruce Cummings.

While I don't have much problems with the definitions used for the left (even if they are a bit more broad than I preferred), the definition used to describe the right runs into problems immediately when you bring up people like Kim Ku. Though being associated with the "far right," Kim Ku does not match any of the qualifiers mentioned. When it came to fighting the Japanese he was arguably one of the most militant figures in the Independence Movement, as the KPG would attempt several assassinations under his watch. He had no tolerance for Japanese collaborators which was the major cause for is disgust with the US military government after independence Finally, Kim Ku's popularity was fairly massive which he used to his advantage whenever he can. His failed coup against the US military was not lead by a small group of leaders but consisted of a mass uprising including protests and call for general strikes. Kim Ku's stances on Communism is a bit more murky, as he seemed to shift from being able to work with communists at some points to being against. Though there is no debate that Kim Ku disliked Communism as an ideology, he was willing to work with Communists if he felt that they were sincerely nationalist in their goals. His attack on the Communists during the period from 46-48 seems to be more fueled by the fact that the Communists in the south "betrayed Korea" with their position on the trusteeship. With these facts, its hard to consider Kim Ku a member of the "far right" with this definition.

Kim Ku is not the only figure of the "right" who fails to match up with this definition. Cho Man-sik, though clearly more conservative than Kim Gu, was willing to work with the left (being a fairly large figure in the Korean People's Republic) and had strong grassroots support in Pyongyang. It also cannot be forgotten that Syngman Rhee, the largest figure of the Korean right, had mass support in Korea when he arrived by both the right AND the left due to his nationalist credentials.

Things get even blurrier when examining some of the policies of the "right" during this period. As Hwasook Nam's noted in her book Building Ships, Building a Nation, many people in the right supported progressive labor laws. Even after the "left" had been eradicated, it did not stop the calls for incredibly progressive labor laws, including a labor bill of rights that had a vague clause on the right of workers to have share of the wealth(!). Many members of the right supported land reform, though they had disagreements with the left on how far it should be taken. Many figures of the right opposed the trusteeship which later became the basis for their hatred for the Communist traitors. It seems almost that we have used a definition that only accurately describes a small portion of the right and used it to cover a wide spectrum of beliefs.

For the most part, I have generally separated the Left into two categories; the Communists and the people who I mentally call the Progressive Nationalists. I'm still trying to decipher if there is anyway to separate the "right" into several groups. The term "liberal" is not a bad term to describe figures such as Kim Ku and "moderates" like Kim Kyu-sik but we still run into problems when dealing with the "far right" who had some liberal ideas and tactics. I need to do more research on this matter but unfortunately the amount of work in English on this type of issues is relatively small and outdated. I better start cracking on my Korean I guess...

Ssangyong Union leaves KCTU..

In news that few should be shocked about, the Ssangyong Union has severed its ties from the KCTU. 73% of the 700 voters voted in favor of leaving the KCTU. The one question is which sides reasoning was used as a justification for leaving? Was it conservative unionists, who have criticized the KCTU for not being too militant and not willing to compromise with management? Or was it lead by progressives who have noted that the KCTU has failed to back up its militant talk with powerful action? According to the Hankyoreh, it looks like the conservatives dominated the policy (WARNING: Editorial) behind the action. Considering that many of the leaders in the occupation have been kept out of the factory, this news isn't exactly shocking.

EDIT: The Korea Times also has a good editorial that summarizes the problems the KCTU is facing. Unlike other articles from other Korean news sources that blames everything on the KCTU being politically involved and not compromising, the article also mentions how progressives are viewing the KCTU.

Controversy over woman's law and pro-poor policies..

Korea's gender laws are not exactly known for being the most progressive in the world, and are pretty terrible for a country as developed as Korea. One controversial law is currently being reviewed by the Ministry of Gender Equality who has submitted to the Constitutional Court is against the spirit of the basic law (whatever that means).

The law as stipulated in the country's criminal code states, "Men may be punished by a maximum prison term of two years or a maximum fine of 5 million won for luring chaste women to have sex with them through false promises of marriage or other deceptions."

The part the ministry specifically objects to refers to is "chaste women," saying that it carries implications of sexual discrimination.

The ministry also added that the concept of the law runs the risk of perpetuating the stereotype that women don't possess the ability to make decisions using their own free will.

"In the United States and Germany, for example, there is a clear tendency to bring the sense of equality and revise anti-rape laws by no longer defining women as sole victims. Women are replaced by persons in these countries' laws," a ministry spokesman said.

"Chastity is expected not just from women but also from men," he said, explaining that the law as it is, sees women as the only gender that should abide by chastity.

The ministry's opinion comes at a time when the Constitutional Court is scheduled to hold an open hearing on a petition filed by a man who has been accused of having sex with a female colleague on four occasions after he promised to introduce her to his parents, a usual part of marriage protocols.

In its July 2002 ruling, the court supported the constitutionality of the law in a 7-to-2 majority decision. At that time, the majority opinion was based on the court's view that the law helped preserve the spirit of chastity in society.

Good point, but how about the concept that women should be chaste for this law to work being a major issue? Or how about the fact that the law makes it look like chaste women are just a bunch of children who will be lured into indecency with a few tricks? If I want to get some action in Suwon, do I just have to promise some random virgin marriage?

In other news, the new chair of the Grand National Party (GNP) has publicly stated that the GNP will focus on protecting the working class and poor sections of society.

``There has been a rising demand for policy responses to improve the livelihood of working class families and underprivileged people and this requires the ruling party to respond,'' he said.

Here is one way that will help the underprivileged in Korean society; stop screwing around with irregular workers who generally represent the most marginalized and poorest sections of Korea. Stop allowing corporations to push back the date when they have to transition their irregular workers to regular, and stop cutting back benefits for companies that do this. That should help. But then again, I am just some crazy American so what do I know?

A liberal Prime Minister?

President Lee has announced a new candidate for the Prime Minister spot; Chung Un-chan a liberal economist and critic of Lee's economic policies.

The JoongAng Daily has some interesting quotes and tidbits on the subject:

Shortly after the announcement, Chung held a press conference at Seoul National University. “Because of where Korea stands today at home and abroad I cannot just sit behind a desk,” Chung said. “None of the challenges we are facing today will be easy to solve, such as the uncertain macroeconomy, the problems facing people’s livelihoods, the enormous burden on private education spending, the job crisis, social conflict, regionalism and inter-Korean relations.

“I know I have many shortcomings, but I will bring together wisdom and the nation’s experiences to create a stepping stone for social unity and assist the president based on my expertise and efforts to help resolve these issues,” Chung said.

Great, more "social unity" language. Don't get me wrong; I have nothing wrong with a "united" society in theory but calls for "unity" in Korea have generally translated into repression of opposition in the past.

The Princeton-educated economist said he had criticized Lee’s policies in the past, but he had learned through a recent meeting that his economic philosophies were similar to the president’s. “We both think competition should be encouraged in principle, but those who have fallen behind must be warmly cared for,” Chung said.

Some "progressive" economist. So it looks like we have a centrist social liberal economist who cares about the poor. Nothing really shocking there.

Does this show a policy shift for President Lee in general? Time will tell; personally I doubt it will change that much. However, it does show a move towards a different more "subtle" political strategy when it comes to the public. President Lee is probably borrowing notes from the late Kim Dae-jung who also had former opposition act as his Prime Minister (Kim Jong-pil).

Woori Bank cuts wages..

With government pressure mounting, the Woori Bank has announced it will cut wages for its workers by 5% and new workers by 20%. The Korea Financial Industry Union (KFIU), which is based on the craft union model affiliated with the FKTU, apparently is one of the more "flexible" unions according to this article;

The Korea Federation of Banks, part of the industry-wide negotiations in the financial sector, unilaterally terminated talks with the KFIU on Aug 20 and gave its member banks authority to negotiate. Since its founding in 2000, the KFIU has been praised as the model of flexible Korean-style industry-wide negotiations, and had secured a 40-hour work week. This is the first year KFIU has been unsuccessful in negotiating an industry-wide wage deal.

Now why are labor-management cooperation models the best models for unions to work around again? The KFIU is a bit more willing to strike than most its fellow craft unions but its clear that the current situation in the ROK is not an attack on "violent labor" but all forms of labor organizing. And the KFIU is not the only union in the public sector under attack.

A labor expert says the industry-wide negotiating system has been completely shaken by the Management Association of the Health Industry which had broken off from their position as negotiating partner with Korea Health and Medical Workers’ Union. He is concerned that considerable tensions will be appearing in labor-management relations in response to continuous attempts to weaken the industry-wide negotiating system.