Perception - Which Side Are You On and Does it Matter?

Today, I had a lot of random things going through my mind (just like any other day as usual), but mostly surrounding a common theme of perception and appearance. 

I've heard it before..."One of the perks of being a foreigner is getting away with ignorance..."  In the beginning, I chuckled at this idea.  Then I got angry before trying to understand this issue firsthand and why it affected me so much.

In my case, I can't feign to ignorance because most Koreans here assume that I "can't be a Westerner".  It may not factor into their collective consciousness that I am Asian-American, however, many Koreans know that I "can't be a native Korean" either.  Koreans, and although this is a sweeping generality or half truth, feel that they are comfortable to be around me even though social cues and communication messages aren't completely understood between us.  Why?  It's because I LOOK Asian (because I am and it is true) or that I can assimilate into Korean society (not entirely true).

Yes, I have never gotten the following privileges by playing the "foreigner (ahem, looking white) card":

• Getting your photo taken by Koreans
• Having children go up to you with a scripted "Hi, how are you?  Nice to meet you...", 
• Discounts or even free admission to certain venues
• Complimented on language ability (even though it is just a mere "hello" in Korean).  

On the other hand, would I want some of them?  No, and that's because I don't shouldn't measure life by mere trivial things.  They are also things I didn't earn so I shouldn't redeem accolade for something I don't deserve.  Now, I have come to realize this.  But two years ago, I just could not accept this at all.

I would like to be appreciated.  I think everyone deserves to be appreciated, not because of how one looks, but because of what one does to oneself and to others.

On a much deeper level, being invisible because I am Asian is not a plus or minus.  It is who I am and it is what I must deal with in life. 

In fact, dealing with adversity and overcoming barriers is what defines a person.  We don't strive to do things because they are easy but because there is meaning and value in hard work.  Hardships?  Yes, there is certainly a lot of those.  Being defined a "Chinaman" is not just confined to one location, it also exists in Korea.  I've been cast as "second-rate" because I am Chinese, others failing to acknowledge that I am also American.

Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank, said it best.  "If you think this country owes you anything, you're crazy...You have to get a skill...You're a Chinaman." 

Link: On Leadership: Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim

No matter how good one's ability may be in reality or perception, as an Asian, you won't be acknowledged until you become of use to someone or to society.  Even then, you only have five minutes of fame at the very best.  You're a judge of one, who most continue to do one's best with the best intentions, and not compare oneself to others. 

For example, if I hear another rant that my Korean is awful, which it is, then that fuels my determination to do well on the next Korean Proficiency Exam (TOPIK) and the reason for why I study every night (although I should study better).  In terms of "getting a skill", that's something I'm continually trying to work on especially once I settle back in the US. 


There's another issue regarding perception and that is American students, who think they are great in science.  Read: Kids With Fat Heads.  While it may be somewhat (not entirely) true for people outside of East Asia to claim that Asians lack creativity or tend to have higher suicide rates because they are overachievers and hard workers, test results constitute as hard facts, and boy, do they hurt.

It does strike me that Koreans, even my students, for example, are not proud or even acknowledge their achievements.  In a culture that values modesty and avoids boastfulness, level of perceived ability is lower than their actual ability.  They will find mistakes and faults in themselves but it can be a good thing too.  The constant drive to better oneself as long as that power does not cause one to be destructive.

And with that final thought, my eyes are getting heavier.  After eating a Twix bar as a midnight snack, it's time to call it a night.  After all, it's what else--an early trip to the library tomorrow morning to study, of course!

2012 마지막 TV토론 대통력

 **UPDATE:  Park Geun Hye has been confirmed as the new President of South Korea!   Park won 51.5% of the vote against Moon Jae In's 48% to be one of the closest elections in South Korea history!  Ahn Cheol-soo, once a prominent presidential candidate, may have cast his endorsement of Moon Jae In too late to cause a significant dent to Park's lead.  While Park Geun Hye is favored to strengthen US relations with the current FTA agreement, her leadership and domestic policies within South Korea and the promise to talk with North Korea remains a question.  As always, I will stay glued to the Korean news and provide my analysis when anything pressing becomes available!  ^ ^

Sunday, December 16, was the last televised debate before the Wednesday presidential election.  Here are a few things to consider.  The president of South Korea only serves ONE five-year term.  The two major candidates both have a unique history and definitely stand on their own as two polar opposites, who had much different upbringings, although they are of the same age (60 years old).

The leader of the Saenuri Party is Park Geun Hye, a right-wing Conservative whose father was noted as a "dictator" as well as a harbinger of modernization and economic strength to South Korea.  Unfortunately, since she runs on the coattails of her father, she also assumes much of the responsibility of her father such as election scandals and punishment to political dissidents.  This is her second time running for president; she lost to Lee Myung Bak during the early primaries in 2002.

Moon Jae In, is the leader of the Democratic United Party.  Moon was a college student, who protested against Park Chung-hee's (Park Geun Hye's father) regime.  He passed the bar exam and was second in his class at the Judicial Training and Research Institute.  He could have become a judge at this point, but because of his past radical activism, the government considered a precedent to future decisions he would make as a federal judge.  He became an attorney fighting for human rights and civil rights and worked with Roh Moo-Hyun, who would later become president of South Korea in 1997.  President Roh, although he meant well, was unable to compromise and work with the feuding GNP (now Saenuri Party) who were unwilling to work with him.  Later on, President Roh was accused of bribery and thereafter, committed suicide.

South Korean citizens are afraid of a repeat of past mistakes.  Whether Park Geun Hye's father authoritarian rule or Moon Jae In's colleague, President Roh and his "do nothing" government may have on voting preference is something that citizens will have to consider as the choice is not 100% clear.

Currently, in the polls, Park Geun Hye is ahead of Moon Jae In between .5 to 4 percentage points with +/-2 margin of error.

Why is this election important?  Like the US, the economy is slowing down and the effects are now being realized in South Korea.  University students feel the burden of tuition hikes, labor force is affected by high unemployment rate, government funding for programs such as social security may be cut, arguments are made for future implementation to restructure chaebol system, and the decrease in population--these are all a threat to the current economy.

More statistics: Park remains a strong force in the 50-80 year old age group while Moon remains strong in the 20-40 year old age group because pressures regarding obligation to family and education are the cause of higher cost of living and deflation in wages (especially if you live in Seoul).


Moon Jae In looked very composed and he took the offensive at times like Joe Biden in the VP debate.  It was his last, best effort before Wednesday's election, and I think he did quite well to hold on his own.  Park Geun Hye played it safe for the most part and was less confrontational, but she did seem to succumb to fatigue toward the end of the debate; she started to use Daegu dialect and said 아이구, which is can be seen as condescending.  The MBN report asked the viewers what they thought of the debate and they also shared my thought.  On a scale of 1-10, Moon got a 7 and Park got a 6.

Whether or not this translates into votes and how it affects undecided voters remains unknown.

Park Geun Hye vs. Moon Jae In

Okay, here's my summary and translation of tonight.  It was really difficult to understand some of the candidates' positions but I tried my best.:


The debate opened up with the moderator asking what are some of the most pressing issues for South Korea.  Park Geun Hye said that stability against North Korea is first priority and that federal government will support citizens until they finish high school.
Moon Jae In said that he wanted to do an economic analysis to look at assistance for the aging.

Moon: Mentioned Basic Seniors Pension Act and National Pension reform
Park: Introducing child allowances/benefits and the ability to have that applied is unfeasible
Moon: Long-term suppository with child benefits
Park: Giving a tax-write off or stipend to families, who decide to have a (another) baby would increase the birth rate.  But she does not want to give aid to children years after they are born.

Moon argues that when the government pitches in with subsidies and stipends, there will be a reduction in public childcare facilities.  This causes greater participation in the government for childcare support.  He then asks what is the medical and welfare ministry's financial commitment?

Park replies that there is consideration of a welfare policy supported by district taxes.  She asks Moon how do you propose improving the educational system and job training programs?  She answers her own question by saying that the test-oriented entrance exam system is corrupt and that it needs to be reformed.

Moon replies "You're damn right, it's screwed!  Saenuri Party totally ruined our public education system!"  More students are entering private schools and private hagwons and this widens the gap with poor students and gives them an unfair disadvantage.   He will strengthen the public education system step-by-step.

Park replies: First, repeal compulsory special-purpose/specialized schools.  He proposes some sort of hybrid, mix of both specialized/vocational and academic education.  Moon replies that he wants more foreign language high schools and to reform prestigious school entrance exam...  Park says something about academic excellence that totally eluded me.

Moon talks about the rising cost of university tuition.  Park responds about the precedent of reforming and working together with the Teachers' Union in an amicable fashion.  She goes on that the viewpoints of the Korean Teachers' Union are uncompromising and incorrect.  Moon states that Park is questioning the ideological basis of the union's standpoint (or maybe it was the entire question on tuition altogether?)

Moon asks how do you then practice and enforce cuts to university tuition?  Park promises wholeheartedly to slash university tuition.  Moon says he wants to grant financial aid for students unable to pay for tuition.  Park says national scholarships are the way to go.  She says that government's role in helping out with college tuition is skyrocketing.  Moon plants his argument that Park is completely unwilling to help students with tuition cuts.  Park gets angry and said that when she was in government she introduced many bills to grant free education to students and highlights Yeongnam University.  (This part I was confused.  Moon either mentions that Park made many recommendations to move/remove Yeongnam University or that she made many recommendations to have many directors/officials hired at Yeongnam University??)

Next question...How do you prevent heinous crimes and impose measures so that they do not reoccur?

Moon: The government assumes responsibility to protect citizens with public safety measures.  It is necessary to stop at the root of the problem before the person committing the crime is tried as an adullt.  (However, it becomes rather unclear at this point or I just missed it.)

Park: There were 4 heinous sexual assaults/crimes in Korea recently.  There is a shortage in the Korean police force.  She wants to increase the police to 20,000.

Moon to Park: What is your policy on ending nuclear power plants in Korea?  And it is possible to evaluate those screenings in an absolute transparent manner?Park responds that it is necessary to stop nuclear testing.

Park to Moon:  The National Intelligence Service (Korea's version of CIA/FBI) violated human rights, did they not?
Moon responds that the case is still under investigation.  There are allegations of destruction and obstruction of evidence.

Moderator mentions that 3rd party candidate, Lee Jeong Hee(이정희), has bowed out.

Moon asks another question to Park:  Do YOU admit that there was illegal campaigning from your headquarters??
Moon asks another question to Park:  What do you think are the effects on business regarding the 4 Rivers Project?

Moderator asks candidates: What are future science/technology and human resource development plans?

Moon: There should be an increase for support in the development of space technology.
Moon asks Park: Under the Lee Myung Bak administration, the Ministry of Science and Technology was abolished (or encountered deep financial cuts).  What are your thoughts on this?
Park responds that in order to see a rise in science and engineering development, the parliament must participate more and vote in favor for these programs/initiatives.
Moon says something about funding cuts under Saenuri Party to Ministry of Science and Technology...

FINAL ARGUMENTS

Moon:  There (Korea)  desperately needs a regime change and a call for new politics.  Lee Myung Bak's government failed...  Communication and government have to work together...  And strengthen security...

Park:  An era to form regime change is beyond us (??). We need to participate more in government and stop judging the problems of the economy.  We need to take care of the ailing government...


 Korean notes I took during debate:

마지막 토른 대통력

기초노령

저출산
무상 free of charge

Park: financial assistance till you’re in high school
North Korea: stability first priority

Moon: economic analysis to look at assistance for the aging

Park: maintain OECD high level
Moon:
주무

문: 기초노령연금, 국민연근, preserve social security for aging
박:  아동수당 도입, 실현 가능성 낮아
문:  아동수당 장기적인 좌제
박: 아동수당, 출산율 제고 효과

문: 참여정부 때 국공립 보육시설 줄어
참여정부, 보육 지원 큰 폭 늘여

문: 의료 복지 공약 재정 정확한가?

박:  복지정책, 지방비 (district tax) 부담 고려해야
박: 교육제도 개선 방향과 교육 공약은?
박: 입시위주 변질된 교육
대입
문: 새누리당, 우리 교육 완전히 망쳐놔
사교육비 늘어나 가난 대문입니다.
성장 단계별로 공교육 강화할 것

박: 특목고 강제 폐지 시 혼선 생길 것
문: 외국어고, 입시 명문
박:  수월성 평
문: 자사고, 대학보다 등록금 높아
박: 선행, 전교조와 우호적인 과계 이어가나
박: 전교조, 이녀편향성 바뀌어야
문: 박 후보 문제제기가 이념적

문: 반값등록금, 실천 의지 있나?
박: 반값등록금, 일관되게 약속

문: 대학 지원해 등록금
박: 국가 장학금
박: 참여정부 때 대학 등록금 폭등
문: 박 후보, 반값등록금 의지 부족
박: 참여정부, 등록금 자율화 도입
박: Yeongnam Uni long time ago,
문: 박 says 영남대 이사 상당수 추천


문: 복지는 공…

흉악범죄 예방과 재발 방지 대책은?

문:
-국민 안전이 정부 최대 책무
-범죄 근본전인

박:
-성폭력 등 4대악 척결할 것
-부족한 경찰 인력 2만 명 증원

Question time:

문 to 박: 수명 끝난 원전에 대한 정책은?
문 to 박: 원전 투명한 심사 가능한가?

박: 원전 중지, 테스트 거쳐 판단해야

박 to 문:  국정원 여직원 사건, 인권침해 아닌가?

문: 수사 중인 사건…증거인멸 의혹

hurry it up…one minute to go…

박 to 문:  국정원 여직원, 절….

이정희 bows out as 3rd party candidate.

문 to 박: 불법선거사무실 인정하나?

문 to 박: 4대강 사업 얻뗗게 평가하나?

과학기슬 발전과 인재육성 방안은??
문: 여야 초월해 우주 기술 발전 지원해야

문 to 박: 이명박 정부, 과기부 폐지 어떻게 평가?


박: 이공계, 국정 참여 비율 높여야

문: 과학기술 연구원 절반…


Final arguments
문: 정권교체와 새 정치, 간절히필요
이명박 정부 실패…
소통하고 동행하는 정부…
안보 튼튼히 하며…

박: 정권 교체 넘어 시대 교체 이뤄야
참여정부, 경제 문제 평가 끝나
정치 입원…