Today we had some pretty interesting discussions about the ethical implications and international reception of the recent fights in the Korea National Assembly between the Grand National Party (GNP) and Democratic Party (DP). Some of the key points that were brought up include:
- Physical fights undercut the basic idea of democracy.
- International reception will probably distort the story and make it appear worse than it is.
- When assembly members fight it can negatively influence the youth by letting them believe that violence can solve disputes.
- Potentially terminating officials who fight would have a very negative impact as it would force new elections.
- If you propose some kind of solution to a problem, you can simply describe the first one or two things you would do, but when it's a large domestic issue like the one mentioned above, don't end your solution weakly and say something like "I think that would be an okay solution." State your points with confidence, and if you are not entirely positive you can always state that, "This complex problem has no simple solution, but I think step A and step B are the first actions to take to make sure that we move in the right direction."
- Eye contact, eye contact, eye contact! Look your interviewer in the eyes and speak with confidence.
Concerning protests, some people argued that Korean citizens are too quick to protest and when protests turn to violence it often reflects poorly on the international level. At the same time though, protests are one of the key signs of a healthy democracy, so if the international community cannot recognize the benefits of a population that is able to protest, then perhaps it's not a community worth trying to appease.
Also along political lines, we examined the motivations of Lee Myung-bak's restoration of the Cheonggyecheon River while he was Mayor of Seoul in 2003. One thing that was mentioned was that rumors exist that the city government used some forceful and gang-like tactics to evict residents of the dilapidated stream to begin construction. Ultimately though we decided that no matter who the President is, and no matter the accomplishments, the person who holds the title of President will always face heavy criticism from the public because of some kind of cultural imperative to constantly criticize. We referenced how this kind of criticism often goes too far in the case of President Roh's recent suicide and how moments of crisis in history often trigger great changes in the status-quo and fundamental beliefs of societies.
Concerning discrimination, we unanimously agreed that there are many underlying stereotypes, racism, and xenophobic tendencies in Korea. After working our way through this point we decided one of the major mechanisms powering this discrimination was the Korean Education System's concept of "one blood", or Korea existing as a "pure" race.
Concerning cuisine, when asked how Korea might be able to make Korean Food more international we agreed that the best way to get people abroad to like Korean Food is to let them taste it. Whether or not the government can spread an appreciation for Korean food seems debatable. We also decided that when Ko San became the first Korean in space the inevitable media hype surrounding the fact that he carried "kimchi" with him was laughable. Because the kimchi was not true kimchi (read: fermented goodness) it was just a media ploy that actually undercut some aspects of the accomplishment.
Finally, when asked how to make Korea famous for "International Cuisine" we decided that the best way to get authentic food from other countries into Korea is by opening up immigration opportunities for foreigners.
Keywords
(n.) prowess / exceptional or superior ability, skill, or strength; he showed true prowess as a debater
(adj.) disparate / distinct in kind; essentially different; dissimilar; the father and son had disparate philosophies
No comments:
Post a Comment