woodenspoon

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.