woodenspoon

In this week’s edition of Time under the title Look Who's Using Wikipedia, Bill Tancer discusses Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” He argues its strength is the quantity of information which it makes available on the Internet. The weakness is the lack of vetting for accuracy and the increasing trend to find deliberately incorrect and even libellous material.

My view is that people tend to believe what they read. They understand that it might not always be accurate but this is due to oversight rather than a deliberate manipulation of the facts. Until recently most information was disseminated by newspapers. Reputation and the libel laws ensure reasonable accuracy. Nowadays the public gets most of its information from the Internet where there is much less control of accuracy.

Wikipedia has become the No.1 external site visited using Google and people assume that it has the same validity as Encyclopaedia Britannica which has a reputation for accuracy based on hundreds of years of academic research. Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica are like chalk and cheese but the users do not realise this. Therein lies the danger and the opportunity to mislead and manipulate the public’s views and beliefs.

I must admit how tempting it is to use Wikipedia as a shortcut to gather information. But as a novice journalist, I realise that my profession is a provider of information and we need to research the truth and cannot rely on sources such as Wikipedia.

We are living in an era where too much inaccurate information is easily available. "Seeing is believing" might not be a useful guideline anymore.

A caricature of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il decorated the front page of the Economist last week. Inside, under the title “Trust Me?” an article reports that agreement was reached in the six-party talks under which North Korea will receive substantial fuel supplies in return for closing its nuclear plants within 60 days.

Being South Korean, the outcome of these talks is of particular interest to me. Initially I was excited to feel that progress was at last being made. However, North Korea has proved unpredictable in the past, behaving in a way which seems illogical to the outside world. The country’s Stalinist leader has been prepared to see hundreds of thousands of his people starve to death in pursuit of his aims. The problem has been that it is difficult to understand what his aims are.

The Economist article gives a very good review of the past behaviour of North Korea and why it is difficult to trust Kim Jong-il. However, it does not ask the question which is always in my mind. Who is really in charge in North Korea?

North Korea has one of the world’s largest armies and Kim Jong-il can only be kept in power by its support. So is he or the army generals in charge? If there is so much ignorance in the West about the internal workings of North Korea, is it any wonder that there is so much difficulty understanding the actions of that country.

Western commentators analyse North Korea with their heads. I analyse it with my heart and my heart tells me that this might just be another game by Kim Jong-il or whoever’s in charge.

The FT editorial of 6 February claims that Korea is stuck in a time warp.  Kwon Oh-seung, head of Korea’s Fair Trade Commission in an interview with the FT suggests that the chaebol have become too powerful and that this is distorting the economy.  They are able to keep alive uneconomic businesses, suppress the emergence of innovative new businesses and exercise control through minority shareholding which defies good corporate governance.  It is claimed that the chaebol’s dominance must be reduced to ensure a robust economy.

 

I agree with these sentiments but there are other issues which must be addressed.  Professor Yoon, responding to this editorial in a letter on 8 February indicates that the lack of creativity in the work force together with its hierarchical structure is another very serious obstacle to long term economic growth.  I agree with that as well but still there are other major problems.

 

First, Korea’s labour costs have been increasing at rates well above inflation for many years and now rival those in Western Europe.  On an index of 100 for Germany, Korea is 66 while the major emerging economies of India and China are 3 and 5 respectively. Korea will not be able to compete with these countries in heavy industrial output and must change direction towards high tech to use the skills of a well educated work force.

 

Second, Inflexible labour laws which were brought in to protect workers at the time of Korea’s rapid industrial development are no longer relevant to the world’s 10th largest economy.  They stifle the ability of companies to respond rapidly to changing conditions.

 

Reducing the dominance of the chaebol is an important factor in stimulating the Korean economy as the FT points out.  But it is a mistake to believe it is the only one.

In this week’s New Statesman, under the title Pushing Boundaries, Adrianne Blue argues, rightly in my view, that the development of women’s sport mirrors the increasingly important role that they are playing in society today, particularly in western cultures. At the same time that women are reaching senior positions in business for example, women are also taking part in more extreme sporting activities which were until recently only available to men.

However, in developing her argument she seems to be suggesting that women will only reach equality with men if they participate in all sports. She concludes her article by supporting the suggestion that women’s boxing should become an Olympic sport by 2012. I disagree strongly with her conclusion.

In my homeland Korea, women still have to fight for equality and, whilst our rights may be protected in law, in reality we are still regarded as second class citizens. A great deal of discrimination against women still exists in Korean companies. So I am a great supporter of women’s rights and will fight to ensure that my generation of Korean women will play a much greater role in our society.

But women are different from men and they should keep their own identity. Ms Blue argues that women should stretch their boundaries and I agree with that. But boxing is one step too far. It would be like mud wrestling and likely to attract voyeurs rather than sports fans. This would not raise the status of women but rather diminish it. She states that people ignore women’s boxing because it makes them nervous. I believe it is because they find it uncivilised and distasteful.

 

Jenny Lee

 

9 Dec. 2006  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

   

If someone asks me what my best physical feature is, it is very difficult to choose only one out of many! But if I have to decide, I can assuredly say it is “my teeth”.

 

Description of Jenny’s teeth – good alignment, no decay, white.

 

However, for the last couple of days, I’ve been tossing and turning in the night with violent toothache.

 

The cause of the severe pain is my “wisdom teeth”, also known as third molars which are the last teeth to erupt. This occurs usually between the age of 17 and 25 and suddenly at the most inconvenient times!! In Korean, its name is Sarangni (love teeth) referring to the young age and the pain of first love. Hooray for me!!

   

Today, my flatmate handed painkillers to me and seriously said, “What’s wrong with you, how come the wisdom tooth appears at your age?”  

 

I had a good laugh at her question but all of sudden I realised my wisdom teeth are coming too late. Is my body malfunctioning? Or is my body so young and fit that my wisdom teeth are confused?

 

Due to the effect of the painkiller, the pain has decreased.  I wonder what I’ll do with my wisdom teeth.  Keep them or have them extracted?  If you want to find out you will have to visit my blog again!

22/10/06

 

Jenny’s life was once fast paced and exciting; a glamorous selection of fine dining, fancy hotels and fashion.

 

Now, sipping cappuccino from a paper cup in the university coffee shop, she admits that change has not been easy. “I was up and now I am down,” she says despondently.

Jenny’s snap decision to cast aside her high earning and respected position at Shell came as a shock to many. But being well off, it seems, can have its drawbacks. When asked why she left, Jenny hesitates, searching for the right word, “I was weary,” she uttered. She then talks frankly about societal expectations in South Korea and how, as a single twenty nine year old woman she was feeling pressure to marry. “Marriage is not for me right now,” she says, “Besides I am an adventurous person, I needed something new.”

 

In her early twenties Jenny had come to Britain as a backpacker. It was her first experience overseas. She laughingly remarks that the people were, “very tall and scary.” More seriously she adds, “I spent my whole time in the UK getting used to foreigners.”  Now, she simply states, “I feel at home.”

 

As the café begins filling up with coffee seeking students, Jenny smiles and gestures around, “ Britain is a place where people respect the individual. You can wear what you want.” She talks about the, “conformity” of South Korea and how people stick to an unwritten dress code; deviate from that and, “People look at you strange.”

 

People’s freedom to wear what they like reminds Jenny of her passion for shopping, “I saw a great boutique the other day” she says wistfully, “But, I just can’t.”  She might well be eager to express herself freely, but it seems her purse is not.

                                                                                                                                                                 Jenny Lee 

8 Dec. 2006

 

The United States and China are coming to terms with their developing relationship.  Awareness of the complexities will produce a win-win outcome.

 

In 1999 Gerald Segal, a respected British scholar of China said “China is a second-rank middle power that has mastered the art of diplomatic theatre:  it has us willingly suspending our belief in its strength.” [1]  Segal argued that China was indeed a “theoretical power” and was overrated in terms of international trade and investment and that it mattered much less than many believed. 

 

Just seven years later it is difficult to recognize this description of China. Since 2000, China’s contribution to global GDP growth has been bigger than America’s and more than half as big again as the combined contribution of India, Brazil and Russia, the three next-largest economies.[2]  China’s massive build-up of American Treasury bonds $342.1 billion in Sep.2006,[3] affects American interest rates and thus Americans’ willingness to spend. Its low-priced manufactured goods give western consumers more buying power. Its thirst for energy and other commodities such as steel and cement has helped push prices to record highs. Whereas a few years ago it might not have mattered much to the West if China growth falters, today it would be a very different story.

 

 The speed with which this has happened has taken everyone by surprise.  For centuries China was a sleeping giant.  Its policy was inward looking.  When the communists, under the leadership of Mao Tse-dong took control in 1949, Russia was seen as the main threat to world peace. China was thought of as a large but weak country and was largely forgotten about. Relations between China and US remained cool until the visit of President Nixon to Beijing in 1972 which was the first step to try to normalize relationships between the two countries.  Nixon, recognizing the importance of China, said at the end of his visit “This was the week that changed the world.” Margaret Macmillan, the Canadian historian claims in her book that America gave too much away during the visit and that this sowed the seeds for the formidable development of China.[4]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Since 1972 China has transformed itself from a poor backward society to a major player in world markets – its annual growth in GDP has regularly been in double digits and it is now attracting more foreign direct investment than any other country in the world. Asia is the region driving the world economic growth and China is the power house driving the Asian economic growth.  Although there are many uncertainties, it is generally accepted that China’s economy will match that of US within the first half of this century.[5]/[6]/[7]China cannot be ignored in the future and the relationship between China and US has become the single most important relationship between any two countries.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          According to China scholar and former National Security Council official  Kenneth Lieberthal there remains a deep unease in the United States about the impact China will have on American vital interests. This unease can be expressed in five fundamental issues.  [8]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Issue 1:  For decades America has treated the relationship with China as a foreign policy issue. Advice has been freely given to China on domestic reforms necessary to achieve success.  However, China’s cheap labour costs have enabled it to become a global manufacturing centre which is now a threat to America’s own manufacturing base.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Issue 2:  There is disagreement in United States about the long-term nature of the US-China relationship.  Some Americans believe that it is inevitable that by 2020 China will be an enemy of United States and those steps should be taken to block development of the Chinese economy.  Others believe that China is only a potential enemy and that diplomacy can encourage a more constructive long-term relationship based on co-operation rather than distrust.   

 

Issue 3:  It is not clear where China is going domestically.  The economic development is spread along the coastal strip Guangdong to Beijing but the majority of Chinese still live in rural poverty.  Will China’s wealth spread to the rural areas or will the wealth gulf breed resentment and ultimately internal conflict?  America is concerned to what extent this potential internal conflict will produce external influences such as refugee flows, proliferation of international criminal syndicates and other destabilizing influences for the region and the rest of the world.

 

Issue 4:  America and China are uncertain about their respective roles in Asia.  America has been the dominant foreign power in Asia since the end of the Second World War.  In recent years its focus has changed to Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran in response to concerns about international terrorism.  At the same time China has developed stronger diplomatic ties in the region and has now replaced America as the largest trading partner of most countries in the region.  There is a strong perception in the region of Chinese engagement and American disinterest.  The Bush administration has become alert to this but in trying to redress the balance it may lead to tensions and mutual suspicions about each other’s intentions.

 

Issue 5: America supports open economic and financial systems based on democratic government as the model for global development.  China, on the other hand, sees more state intervention in the economy and strong centralized government as the better model.  America has been concerned recently with China pushing its development model in Brazil. [9]

 

These issues are wide-ranging and complex and will have to be tackled step by step as illustrated in recent US – China contacts.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Henry Paulson, the new US Treasury Secretary, visited China recently.  He is no stranger to China having been a frequent visitor while head of Goldman Sachs. He is well placed to tackle some of the economic problems with the Chinese leadership.  One of the main issues he tackled was the weakness of the yuan which is leading to cheap exports to US. China’s trade surplus with the United States last year was $200 billion[10].  Although China recognizes the problem, a rapid change could lead to unemployment in local factories and potential social unrest.  

                                                                                                                                                                                           On the political front, US needs China’s help to try to resolve one of the most difficult and dangerous world problems, North Korea.  The Stalinist regime depends completely on China to keep it viable.  It is not in China’s interests to have a nuclear North Korea and Beijing has been working with Pyongyang to try to find a way forward following the reported nuclear tests in North Korea.  This seems to have had success with reports that Pyongyang has agreed to an early resumption of the six nation talks.  This has been an important test for China and demonstrates it is both willing and able to play its part on the world diplomatic scene. 

 

The Olympics in 2008 will be a major challenge for China.  In 1991, Liu Jingmin, Vice President of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Bid Committee stated “By allowing Beijing to host the games you will help the development of human rights.”  However, Amnesty International points to a continuation of serious violations of human rights in China.  While this does not have a high profile yet in the mind of the public, it can be expected to grow as the opening of the games approaches.  Pressure will be brought to bear on China to make improvements and some progress can be expected over the next couple of years.  However, will China revert to its old ways after the Olympics are over?  

 

There is a precedent which gives cause for optimism.  South Korea was a military dictatorship when it was awarded the 1988 Olympics in 1981. The games were awarded on the understanding South Korea was moving towards democracy.  By 1988 elections had been held which, while not fully democratic were at least a step in the right direction.  The momentum build up in this process was unstoppable and today South Korea is a full multi-party democracy.  While China is a much larger and more complex country, any changes made in the run up to the Olympics may not be reversible.

 

The other significant event in 2008 is the US Presidential elections.  In the past, incoming presidents have adopted fresh approaches to China which has had a significant impact on relations between the two countries.  However, Chinese development has been so strong since Bush came to power that it is now less likely that a change of president alone can significantly impact on the relationship which is now as strongly tied to economic and trade as it is to diplomacy.

 

 The speed of China’s development and the impact this will have internationally as well as domestically in the US will inevitably lead to tensions in the years ahead.  These tensions will have to be managed carefully to ensure that there is a win-win outcome for both countries as well as the rest of the world.  It is in no one’s interest for a new cold war to develop.

 

Jenny Lee

6 Dec.2006

To win an award is always great when it is given to us for being first. However, there is also a meaningful award given to a loser called the "Wooden Spoon Award". I had that experience recently when my team won the Wooden Spoon Award at the game night.

How did the custom of awarding a wooden spoon to a losing competitor originate?

The Oxford English Dictionary comes to the rescue with the answer:

;a spoon made of wood; spec. one presented by custom at Cambridge to the last of the Junior Optimes, i.e. the lowest of these taking honours in the Mathematical Tripos; hence, this position in the examination, or the person who takes it. Also in extended use, referring to the lowest of a list or set in other connections.

Having lived in a winner-take-all society like Korea, the Wooden Spoon Award is new to most Asian people including myself. I found this aspect of British life interesting where competing is as important as winning. The Asian attitude is winning is what is important.

I’d like to attribute the glory of winning the Wooden Spoon Award to my team members Deepa, Doris, Gemma, Tanu, Samuel, Coyel, Vivien! I could not have won it without them!

    vs

 It has been a dilemma to me, what is the interface and friction in between PR and Journalism.

Are journalists and PR professionals reallly 'kindred spirits'? or are 'enermy'?

Some people say, they do the same job, though PR one is kind of "journalism in reverse"(minimising and suppressing bad news which journalist wants to accentuate). They are more simillar than we realise and that they should all work together as a big happy familly..Ironically most PR professionals started out as journalists.

However, some think it is nonsense. PR is insidious and sneaky whereas journalism, by the nature of their work, try to look into what is really going on, and if possible find the areas that the PR practictioner wants to hide.

I'm struggling to reach a conclusion of these conflicting opposition more precisely. So far, what i've found is that both sides tend to like to drink a lot!