“Zaibatsu (財閥), literally plutocrats or financial clique) is a Japanese term referring to industrial and financial business conglomerates in the Empire of Japan, whose influence and size allowed for control over significant parts of the Japanese economy from the Meiji period until the end of World War II.” Wikipedia. In Korea, the equivalent word is “chaebol.” These mega-corporate structures are almost a second government, sacred cows and not to be trifled with. They wield massive power and their relationship with government is always a bit scary.
While Japan seems to have moderated this zaibatsu-government relationship, as South Korean mega-conglomerates, from Hyundai to Samsung, have spread their wings into many varied sectors of the global economy (shipping, automotive, consumer electronics, etc.), their power also seems to have grown; they almost seem to have certain legal exemptions not available to anyone else. Reports in Korea, for example, write that President President Lee Myung-bak “would soon pardon Samsung Chairman Lee Kun-hee on a 2008 conviction for tax evasion. Chairman Lee, 68, had already received a federal pardon in the 1990s on a conviction for bribing two former presidents while he was with the firm.” Los Angeles Times, May 10th.
Chaebols provide essential economic opportunities, massive employment and a favorable trade balance for Korea; they are the very foundation of that nation’s entire economic fortune. And as such, they are treated with almost the same reverence in Korea as the Emperor in Japan receives from his constituency. The top chaebol managers are Korea’s royalty. “‘In South Korea, it's considered taboo to criticize the chaebols,’ said Kim Ky-won, professor of economics at Korea National Open University. ‘They hold very close to absolute power.’… Most critical stories run in smaller media less dependent on ads from big companies. Major media reports are mostly limited to breaking news of prosecutions of chaebol leaders but seldom probe deeper, critics say. ‘Samsung has financial power over the press. They're their own sanctuary where no one can intervene or criticize them,’ said Kim Keon-ho, an official at the Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice.” LA Times.
So when the Korea Times allowed the publication of a satirical spoof (“What the People Got for Christmas”) that targeted Samsung and a few others in an English-language column on Christmas of last year – specifically addressing the arrogance of some chaebol leaders and the past bribery scandals with Samsung – Samsung was not amused. On the day that Samsung’s Chairman Lee was pardoned (December 29th), Samsung filed a suit against the Korea Times, its senior editor and the author of the spoof (Michael Breen), claiming damages from lost profits and a negative impact on their reputation.
“In its suit, Samsung said the column used a ‘mocking tone’ to add ‘baseless, malicious and offensive false information to criticize’ the firm.” The LA Times. Samsung initially dropped its case against the Korea Times and its editor after the paper issued two “clarifications” but continued pursuing all avenues against Breen. Eventually, on May 12th, feeling the pressure from its Western customers (some say Breen cracked), Samsung relented and dropped its suit against Breen as well. The LA Times (May 12th) added tidbit from Samsung’s corporate spokesman: “‘We didn't want to have a legal war with Michael Breen,’ said Hwang Eun-ju, a member of Samsung Electronics’ corporate communications team. ‘That was not our intention…. Breen accepted that he went beyond parody, and we accept ed that somehow the column could be considered black humor. We reached a common consensus.’”… Samsung spokesman James Chung said the company decided to drop the lawsuit after Breen sent a May 7 letter of apology.” Unfortunately for Breen, criminal charges might still be hovering.
Libel in Korea carries not only civil penalties but also can be prosecuted as a crime. “Additionally, both South Korean civil and criminal codes regarding defamation are stricter than in many other countries, including the U.S., said Brendon Carr, an American attorney who practices in Seoul. ‘In South Korea, injury to one's reputation is the key element, not the truth,’ he said. ‘The fact that a statement is true is not an absolute defense. Satire is not a defense. That's different from the American definition. America is a free speech society, whereas Korea is not. It has historically been a 'sit down and shut up' society.’” The LA Times.
This special exemption from the rules accorded to the biggest of the big in Korea seems to echo parallel practices in the United States. On April 28, 2004, for example, the SEC exempted the five biggest financial institutions in the land from limitation on the level of debt that they could incur… everyone else had to live with the limits. Two of those companies – Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. – are no longer with us. The richest and most powerful American financial institutions rail at the thought that the government might want to regulate their derivative markets, prevent their obvious conflicts of interest with their clients and try and protect consumers from dangerous economic practices; they are special, they need freedom to pursue profits even if that pursuit can bring down the global economy. Is the only difference between these American practices and those in Korea the application of the First Amendment? Think about it.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment