On August 5, 2024, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling against Google. This occurred amid an ongoing antitrust lawsuit in which the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) alleged Google’s monopolistic control over the online search market. As the case unfolds, DoJ prosecutors have hinted at requesting a divestment order, forcing Google to break up parts of its business. This trial has captured global attention, speaking to a growing trend: governments worldwide are reassessing the unchecked growth of platform tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon and exploring strategies to counter their dominance.  In Korea, this global trend has sparked discussions about regulating domestic tech giants.   Naver, Kakao, and Coupang are some of the first companies that come to mind, each a giant in the industry of search engines, social services, and e-commerce. They correspond to Google, Meta, and Amazon, respectively. Both countries face similar challenges in regulating big tech companies, but the playgrounds in which these companies thrive are quite different. Why exactly are they different?      For starters, both countries have had decades of their own unique history of platform economy. It stands to reason if the situations are so distinct, the regulations imposed should be different as well. But when it comes to regulations, the U. S. acts as a global standard that other countries tend to follow. As we will see later on in the article, the Korean platform economy is still in an early stage of development, and the government faces a decision. Should it pursue strict regulations or adopt a more lenient approach? The U. S. government has been taking aggressive antitrust actions—should Korea follow suit?Before moving forward, what exactly is a platform economy? According to Wikipedia, a “platform economy encompasses economic and social activities facilitated by digital platforms. ” In other words, it is the aggregate of platform businesses—not just the entities themselves, but also all the interactions and the results that are incurred by them.  Hence, one important feature of the platform economy is the network effect. As more users join a social network, more people outside the network will want to join. As more search queries pile up, search engines can output more accurate responses. This virtuous cycle has enabled businesses like Google and Meta to become the giants they are today.  Brief Historical Overview of the Two Platform EconomiesU. S. The digital platform economy in the U. S. dates back more than 50 years, with technological advances like the microprocessor in the 1970s and the Internet in the 1990s. Major tech companies emerged in the era of the Internet, including Google(founded in 1998, 90. 01% global search engines), Amazon(founded in 1994, U. S. 37. 6%, 310 million international), and Facebook (founded in 2004, currently Meta Platforms). Google revolutionized search and branched out into advertising, cloud services, and even mobile technologies with Android; Amazon started as an online bookstore but quickly grew into a global e-commerce platform and cloud computing giant; and Facebook began as a social media platform but now explores virtual reality, digital marketplaces, and beyond. Although these companies started in different industrial sectors with their own unique goals, they have some things in common. Not only have they built monopolistic positions in their respective industries, but they’ve also branched out from their original endeavors into multiple sectors. The U. S. platform economy has become both an engine of innovation and a playground of concentrated market power. KoreaKorea’s digital platform economy developed after the 1997 Asian financial crisis, much later than its American counterpart. Naver, founded in the early 2000s, became Korea’s leading search engine and diversified with blogs, portals, and a strong e-commerce presence. Kakao released its messaging platform Kakaotalk in 2010 and KakaoStory in 2012. After its merger with Daum, it quickly expanded its business model to encompass areas like payments (KakaoPay), transportation (KakaoTaxi), and banking (KakaoBank). Coupang, founded in 2010, is now Korea’s largest e-commerce platform. It is known for its fast delivery service, Rocket Delivery, and OTT service Coupang Play. Each of these companies leads its sector. According to InternetTrend, Naver has a share of 54. 26% in the Korean web search market. KakaoTalk has monthly active users(MAU) of approximately 45 million, with a market share of 93. 4% as of June, according to Mobile Index. The Korea Fair Trade Commission evaluated Coupang’s market share as 24. 5%, with Naver closely following with 23. 3% as of 2022. In fact, Coupang holds more than 14 million premium members. How Do the U. S. and Korean Platform Economies Compare? The U. S. and Korean digital platform economies both place a heavy focus on technology-driven business models. Both economies have also fostered platform giants which started from niche markets and now dominate their respective industries. However, there are differences in terms of market characteristics, language barriers, and regulations. The most apparent difference between the two platform economies lies in market size. As mentioned above, a platform economy relies heavily on the network effect. Market size is a direct determinant of the strength of that effect. The U. S. population reaches nearly 350 million, accounting for a huge consumer base. Also, the U. S. platform economy operates in English, which allows them to easily expand across borders. The potential reach of these companies spans beyond the Anglosphere and into the rest of the world, as English is a global lingua franca.  On the contrary, the Korean population is approximately 50 million people, constituting a relatively smaller domestic market. While Korean is spoken by a significant global diaspora and is gaining prominence due to the popularity of K-pop and K-culture, it remains primarily spoken within South Korea. The language doesn’t have the same global reach as English or Spanish. That is why most Korean platform companies have focused on consolidating their position within the domestic market. Some platforms like Naver have indeed made efforts to expand their business to neighboring countries like Japan (such as through Line), but this remains an outlier in the broader trend. Finally, differences in market maturity between the two digital platform economies can be observed. The U. S. digital platform economy is mature and has had decades to evolve. The Korean digital platform economy is only now emerging and still has potential for growth and innovation.  The Differences in Regulations Regulations are fundamentally different from factors like market characteristics and language barriers. While there is not much we can do about the latter, regulations are structured proactively by the government. Or to put it another way: we can affect the platform economy by taking different approaches to regulations. This is why deciding the path for regulations is so important!The U. S. has historically leaned towards aggressive antitrust actions against large tech companies. The most famous case in modern times is United States v. Microsoft Corp in 2001, where Microsoft was forced to carry out several measures including disclosure of Application Programming Interfaces(APIs) in its operating system and the creation of an independent compliance committee. The disclosure of APIs forced Microsoft to share technical information it had kept proprietary with third-party developers, while the committee had access to internal Microsoft documents and oversight authority. The ongoing United States v. Google case clearly shows us that the U. S. is still pursuing such measures. What about Korea? Although the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) did address the dominance of conglomerates during the 2000s by introducing regulations limiting cross-shareholding, the Korean platform economy didn’t receive much attention until 2020. One important milestone was the passage of the “Anti-Google Act” in 2021, which prohibited app store operators like Google and Apple from forcing developers to use proprietary payment systems. However, concerns have arisen that such may have unintended consequences like higher transaction costs for developers and disruption in the app store ecosystem, potentially leaving small developers worse off than before. The Way Forward: Do We Need Strict Regulations in Korea?For approximately a year now, the Korean Fair Trade Commission has been pushing for an amendment to the Fair Trade Act to target “near-monopoly platforms that have the power to affect the entire platform economy”. Regardless of the reaction to the approach, the government is willing to pursue harsh regulations against digital platforms with power. While the intention behind such regulations is to prevent monopolistic practices, there are concerns. Let’s take a look.  1. Hindering innovationThe foundation of Naver and Kakao’s rapid success was innovation. Restrictive policies imposed may stifle and discourage companies from exploring new technologies, services, or business models.   Google and Facebook had the opportunity to scale freely in their early ages, primarily due to the lack of early regulation on the internet and a business-friendly environment that prioritized fostering innovation. It is true that the playground has drastically changed and that we cannot give Korean tech companies a regulation-free environment. This is where the bottom-up approach, which will be discussed shortly, becomes crucial. It will play a key part in setting up an environment that facilitates innovation. 2. Reverse discriminationAnother concern is the possibility of reverse discrimination against domestic tech companies. Unlike the global tech giants, which operate in multiple markets across the world, Korean platform companies primarily operate within the domestic market. U. S. tech giants can better absorb the impact of regulations in Korea while continuing to thrive elsewhere. For example, U. S. tech giants have frequently combated regulations in the European Union by reducing or even threatening to pull their business altogether.  U. S. tech giants can even wait it out until the regulations become more lenient, or change their business structure to avoid being designated as a monopolist. Korean tech giants do not have the financial flexibility to hold out or an alternative consumer base to turn to in such situations.  The Alternative: Bottom-Up ApproachIf strict regulations are problematic, what can the Korean government do? Surely the solution isn’t turning a blind eye to the issues that may likely emerge. There is just one key objective here: keeping the Korean platform economy healthy.  The Korean government should focus on supporting small businesses that can innovate within the platform ecosystem. This would act as a counterbalance to the dominance of Korean tech giants without dismantling them or letting foreign entities dominate the market. Let’s look at some approaches that can help achieve this ideal outcome. a.   Expand financial assistance: Incubators and AcceleratorsKorea has already established a solid environment for startups. The Ministry of SMEs and Startups, after its formal establishment in 2017, has played a critical role in fostering this environment. It ensures that critical components like Incubators and Accelerators can do their part in assisting startups. Incubators are organizations that focus on helping early-stage companies refine their business ideas by providing various resources. Accelerators focus on helping companies scale quickly, providing support such as mentorship and educational components.   For example, Korea has developed initiatives like the Creative Economy Innovation Centers and launched TIPS (Tech Incubator Program for Startups) to function as both Incubators and Accelerators. Utilizing these well-developed initiatives, the digital platform economy could be improved as well. Instead of imposing regulations on a specific company in a specific industry, the government could provide more support to small companies through these initiatives.  b. Collaboration: Big platform companies and small firms can collaborateIt almost sounds too good to be true, but establishing a genuinely mutually beneficial and non-exploitative framework is essential and possible. We’re accustomed to seeing big companies exploit small companies, as those cases usually end up in headlines on the news. But successful cases like Naver’s D2 Startup Factory (D2SF)exist as well. D2SF supports startups in various areas such as AI, robotics, and cloud computing. Small companies gain mentorship and infrastructure, and in return, Naver gets the external innovation it needs.  With the right government support to incentivize the big platform companies, this mutual framework can be expanded to the digital platform economy as well. The relationship has to be mutually advantageous to both the big and small companies: if this resembles a mere handout from the big to small companies it cannot be sustainable. D2SF is mutually beneficial to both Naver and the small companies, which made the program so successful – since its establishment in 2015, D2SF has successfully partnered with more than 110 startups. For such relationships to be established, a program should aim for long-term collaboration where both parties can invest in the growth of one another.  It is important to note that the two solutions above are fundamentally different from strict regulations. While imposing harsh regulations and supporting small firms both aim to enhance competition, they achieve the goal in vastly different ways. Imposing strict regulations focuses on controlling the power of tech giants, which may risk stifling innovation and cause companies to become overly cautious. Considering the traits of the Korean platform economy discussed above, this could have unintended downsides. On the other hand, supporting small firms focuses on building up smaller firms to level the playground. In the long run, this approach may create a more sustainable and competitive market. Future of the Korean Platform EconomyThe Korean platform economy stands at a crossroads, as the government begins to respond to the growth of the platform economy in general. While what the U. S. has been doing to big companies may seem promising, we don’t have to take that path. Instead of taking a page out of their book, let’s use the resources and frameworks available in our own startup industry. By deploying financial support to small firms with potential and fostering collaboration between large platforms and smaller firms, Korea has the chance to further develop a robust platform economy.  

In March 2022, Hyundai Department Store sparked controversy for prohibiting a mother and her infant daughter from entering its VIP lounge. Its policy states, “People can use the lounge once a day with a companion, but children under 10 are prohibited. ” Hyundai Department Store explained that the age-limit restriction aims to maintain a “luxurious, comfortable atmosphere” in the lounge and address potential safety concerns, adding, “We did not design the lounge with children in mind. ”In recent years, South Korea has witnessed a steady rise in child-free zones, also known as “no-kids zones”. While some argue that these zones address the practical concerns of businesses and customers, others see them as a reflection of growing social intolerance towards one another, leading to the marginalization of families. Since the expansion of no-kids zones is a multifaceted issue, this article delves into the perspectives of businesses, parents, and the public and government. Instead of understanding this issue as a binary between parents and those disturbed by children, this article introduces a promising balance of various opinions: the concept of “care kids zones. ” By replacing “no” with “care,” South Korea gains an opportunity to address this issue in a way that promotes harmony.  What are No-Kids Zones?No-kids zones refer to spaces where access and usage are restricted to adults, prohibiting the presence of children. The concept first emerged around July 2014 in Gangnam and Hongdae, where cafes and restaurants started banning entry by children. The main reason behind this was children’s disruptive behavior without appropriate supervision from their parents. These zones are most commonly found in cafes and bakeries(76. 1%) and restaurants(18%), according to a 2023 survey by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Recently, leisure spaces such as department stores have also started to adopt these policies, as mentioned earlier.   Why, then, should the rise of no-kids zones be considered a troubling issue in South Korea? No-kids zones are increasing across the country rapidly, which may have long-lasting impacts on societal fragmentation by removing families’ presence in public spaces. A report by the Jeju Research Institution identified at least 542 businesses operating as no-kids zones in Korea in 2021, with the actual number expected to be higher since these zones do not require registration. JongYik Jeong from Ewha Womans University noted that this number represents an increase of over 45% since 2018, underscoring the rapid expansion of no-kids establishments. Now, let us examine the different perspectives on this issue to understand the profound impact this has on societal cohesion.   The Perspectives of Parents: Facing the Demographic CliffThe proliferation of no-kids zones may lead parents to feel that their parental ability is insufficient since many attribute these establishments to children being disruptive without parental supervision. Moreover, the no-kids establishments uncover deeply entrenched attitudes that eliminate the presence of families with young children in public spaces. These days, children are not only considered as disturbances but nuisances in public spaces by many, and this sentiment may apply to parents. Particularly, as mothers are typically the ones carrying children in public, they are likely to feel excluded too by societal hostility towards their children.  This sentiment coincides with the country’s dire demographic situation. Since 2018, South Korea has been the only OECD member with a birth rate below 1. 0, and in 2024, the number of elementary school entrants declined by 10. 3% compared to the previous year. Critics say that the proliferation of no-kids establishments may exacerbate this trend by marginalizing families with children. Since no-kids zones signify that children are considered burdensome in public spaces, people will perceive society as less accommodating for family life. The exclusionary nature of no-kids policies could also deepen generational divides, as individual convenience is prioritized over the needs of families with children. This, in turn, creates a vicious cycle where cultural individualism and diminishing population perpetuate.    Furthermore, this exclusion aligns with South Korea’s demanding work culture, which leaves parents struggling to balance career and childcare responsibilities. According to OECD data, the average annual working hours for South Korea were 1,874 hours in 2023, which exceeds the average by 155 hours. The fact that this number has fallen by nearly 200 hours over the past decade highlights the pressuring working environments in South Korea.  In these working conditions, parents find it difficult to find a work-life balance, leading to a significant source of stress and limited energy for child supervision. This creates a perception in society that children are unruly in public spaces, and parents are not taking full responsibility. In such a demanding environment, the rise of unwelcoming environments for families further alienates parents.  The Business Perspective: Facing Practical ChallengesFrom the perspectives of business owners, the decision to implement no-kids policies stems from legitimate concerns, which makes this issue more complex. A 2023 survey by the Ministry of Health and Welfare revealed that 35. 9% of businesses cited potential conflicts with other customers due to noisy children as a primary reason for implementing the policy. Another 35. 2% expressed a preference for maintaining a quiet atmosphere, while 28. 1% worried about disputes with parents who failed to supervise their children adequately. As these data show, businesses are facing practical challenges for their profit. They are trying to meet the customers’ needs while protecting themselves from having to be fully responsible for issues involving children. In this light, no-kids policies may seem like a good solution to mitigate risks and complaints.   These concerns are not unfounded, indeed. In 2011, a child collided with a staff member carrying a hot pot in one of the restaurants in Busan, which resulted in a costly legal battle for the business. The Busan District Court ordered the restaurant to compensate the family with 41 million won, attributing 30% of the responsibility to the child’s parents and 70% to the restaurant. This case reveals that there is a lack of insurance programs that offer affordable, comprehensive insurance programs that cover businesses’ efforts in trying to incorporate the presence of children into their establishments. Specifically, businesses are not given enough subsidies to deal with accidents raised by children. Furthermore, there are no clear, consistent government guidelines for child safety measures in public spaces. This places a bigger psychological burden on business owners, as children are often unpredictable.  The Public and Government Response: Balancing OpinionsThe debate over the increase of no-kids zones has drawn attention from public institutions and the government too. The National Human Rights Commission of Korea has emphasized the need to balance business interests with human rights. It noted that companies have the right to establish policies for profit, but that right is limited. Policies prohibiting children restrict parents with young kids from accessing certain areas. Specifically, such policies may violate Article 11 of the Constitutional Law and Article 2, Clause 3 of the National Rights Committee Law, which forbid age-based discrimination. Having this in mind, in May 2023, Jeju Island’s local council, Song-Chang-Won, proposed the No-Kids Zones Prohibition Ordinance. However, it was met with significant protests by businesses and individuals, leading to the bill’s suspension.  In fact, the public largely remains to support the adoption of no-kids policies. According to a survey conducted by the Korea Research Institute titled “What is the public opinion about the No Kids Zone,” 71% of respondents deemed no kids zones acceptable, while only 17% opposed them. Notably, among those who had been disturbed by children, 82% supported no-kids zones. This highly resonates with the broader cultural trend of prioritizing more peaceful, controlled spaces that offer people opportunities to escape from their overwhelming daily lives. Dr. Xander Tilland critically notes, “Koreans in their 20s and 30s have high expectations for private spaces and are intolerant of the noise made by young children and seniors. These attitudes reflect a reluctance to embrace others in public spaces. ” While it is understandable that younger generations face extreme stress and seek peaceful spaces, the cultural shift from collectivism—where mutual tolerance was valued—to individualism raises concerns about societal cohesion. This transformation addresses individual needs but weakens communal harmony.   A Promising Resolution Towards a Tolerant Society: The Care Kids ZonesViewed from different perspectives, it becomes clear that a balance is mandatory. Specifically, parents should teach their children appropriate public behaviors and take responsibility when their children disturb customers. If children act inappropriately, parents should address the situation and apologize. Businesses, at the same time, should strive to create safe environments for children by clearly marking potential hazards so that parents can proactively manage their children’s safety. These mutual efforts can lead to a more harmonious society.  The concept of care kids zones—by replacing the exclusionary “no” with the inclusive “care”—presents a promising resolution by integrating conflicting opinions and addressing the needs of all stakeholders. These zones create a welcoming environment for families with children while emphasizing parental responsibility for supervision and businesses’ responsibility for ensuring a safe and accommodating space for all customers. Typically, a care kids zone would enforce clear guidelines such as the following: “XX is a care kids zone. Parents must accompany their children at all times due to safety risks. The café holds no liability for accidents, and parents are fully responsible for damages caused by children. Please respect others so that everyone can enjoy their time here. ” This approach balances inclusivity and responsibility, providing families with a welcoming experience while addressing the practical concerns of businesses and other customers.  However, critics argue that this campaign places the full responsibility for any issues caused by children solely on the parents. Hence, to truly tackle the issue, we should aim to seek a more comprehensive balance that includes proper parental supervision, strong support from governments and policies for businesses, and the fostering of mutual understanding. In this light, the “Seoul Kids OK Zone” initiative, an application of care kids zones, seeks to create more child-friendly spaces by encouraging businesses to offer child-friendly menus, utensils, and furniture. In return, businesses receive a 300,000 won subsidy for child-friendly equipment, which not only offsets the costs of preparing to welcome children but also increases their overall income in the long term. In conclusion, the rise of no-kids zones calls for South Korean society to address growing intolerance, which, if left disregarded, could have long-lasting effects on social fragmentation. It is crucial to recognize that children are a natural and necessary part of society. By establishing more care kids zones with ample governmental support and fostering a culture of mutual respect, South Korea can take a meaningful step towards building a more cohesive society.  

“She’s the fifth person I know to leave this year – and it’s only the beginning of March,” I thought glumly, trudging along my way home. I, a fourteen-year-old living in Sejong Special Self-Governing City, had just heard the news that my friend Gina was moving to Seoul in a few days. She wasn’t the only one leaving the city. More and more families were moving out of Sejong. Some were heading to Seoul, others to nearby big cities like Daejeon. The number of departures seemed to increase each year. It wasn’t always like this, though. My mind shifted to elementary school when my school had to make a whole new class to accommodate new students. That was barely four years ago. But now, people seemed to be moving out just as quickly as they had arrived. Why was that? What problems did Sejong have in attracting the population of Seoul and retaining its own? To understand Sejong, we must go back to why it was built. The drastic population growth of Seoul began in the 1970s, coinciding with rapid economic development. Seoul’s overpopulation led to skyrocketing house prices, pollution, the overuse of resources, as well as the growing gap in wealth and standard of living between Seoul and other provincial areas. Government officials sought to solve the problem by creating a new administrative capital. This was first suggested by former president Kim Dae-jung in 1971. Despite some skepticism, many presidents supported separating the economic and the administrative capital throughout the years, regardless of their political stance.  After overcoming constitutional challenges and a year-long legal battle, relocating the administrative capital to the Chungcheong area was ultimately approved. Named after the Great King Sejong of the late Joseon Dynasty, the new capital Sejong Special Self-Governing City officially launched on July 1st, 2012. As of 2024, 45 central government agencies, 16 national research institutes, and 10 public institutions have been repositioned to Sejong. During the development process, many of the city’s characteristics were adopted from the winning proposal of a conceptual design competition open to architects. The winning design incorporated abstract concepts like democracy and equality, which were actualized by a “decentralized” city layout. The city’s layout featured a ring-shaped system and a set of 25 equally-ranked small towns.  However, despite its bold plan and promising start, Sejong has faced significant controversy, especially regarding whether it has effectively attracted the population from Seoul. Although Sejong had successfully brought in numerous government agencies and research institutes with over fifty thousand employees, only a few have made the city their residence. This brings us to the core issue: Sejong struggles to meet the needs of its residents. If even those working in Sejong choose not to live there, how can the city expect any new residents?Ironically, it is Sejong's initial goals and intended plans that make the city unfit for living. More specifically, the problem is the lack of proper execution of goals which were far too idealistic. Let’s delve into some of the main problems that residents have with the city.  The Lack of a Central HubOne core issue Sejong faces is the lack of a “downtown” area. Sejong’s theme of decentralization was implemented by designing the administrative city into a ring-shaped system with no particular central hub, distributing its functions into six living zones. Zones 1 through 6 encircle Zone S, a space left open to preserve the natural environment. As of 2024, more than half of the population resides in Zones 1 and 2.   Zone 1, with the Prime Minister’s Office, the Government Complex, and forty-four central administrative agencies,  represents central administration. Zone 2, on the other hand, is a place for arts & culture and international commerce.   Each of the six zones incorporates unique public facilities that align with their designated themes. Source: 행복청 (National Agency for Administrative City Construction)  The distribution of governmental buildings across each zone naturally led to the distribution of commercial buildings. While the commercial facilities in each zone are enough to fulfill basic needs, none of them are large enough to develop the bustling downtown atmosphere that most cities have. As a result, residents find it inconvenient to enjoy leisure activities since amenities like movie theaters and shopping malls are spread across multiple zones. The absence of a focal point in the city also causes the high vacancy rate of commercial properties. According to the Korea Real Estate Agency, as of July 2024, the vacancy rate of commercial buildings in Sejong has reached 25. 7%, ranking as the highest in the country. Due to the inconvenience of enjoying leisure activities in Sejong, citizens go to Daejeon or Cheongju to have fun. This has contributed to the decline of Sejong’s commercial area, despite Sejong ranking fifth in the nation for income levels.  Cities naturally develop around a central hub, and a strong hub attracts people from other cities. The absence of such a hub in Sejong makes it more challenging for the city to grow and appeal to new residents.   Inconvenient TransportationIf a city lacks a central hub, it should—at the very least—have extensive and convenient modes of transportation for citizens to travel around zones. However, Sejong has also failed to maintain an efficient transportation system.  Sejong was planned as South Korea’s first-ever public transportation-centered city, with  70% of all transportation to be done via public transportation. However, this goal seems to have largely failed. The time gap between intercity buses is wide and irregular, some even being over thirty minutes. The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, originally initiated as an alternative to subways, also faces the problem of long waiting times. Concerns of inclusivity and accessibility have also been raised with the BRT; some BRT vehicles have platformed floors, making boarding difficult for wheelchair users.  In direct opposition to the initial plan, the many issues with public transportation have made Sejong a city where driving a car is almost a necessity. The  Korea Transport Database revealed that, in 2020, 45. 4% of transportation within the city was by car while only 7. 3% was by city buses, placing Sejong among one of the lowest in the country for the rate of public transportation used.   Even for drivers, the experience is far from ideal, with inconvenient roads being the main reason. Although Sejong’s road coverage is around 24%, comparable to other cities, there are no wide boulevards or large avenues—just narrower roads, mostly four lanes or less, spread evenly across the city. This is because the internal road network of Sejong is designed to be decentralized and non-hierarchical, aligning with the city’s theme of equality and distribution. Excessive traffic control—speed bumps every minute and speed limits changing every block—combined with the two-lane roads cause heavy traffic congestion during rush hours, especially near the Government Complex and City Hall.  An Unfulfilled Aesthetic Vision  Although Sejong City has been very experimental in its architectural design, there has been criticism from residents regarding its aesthetic. This is due to the high-rise apartment buildings surrounding the city, blocking the view. The initial development guide for the administrative city emphasized harmony with the surrounding landscape. Therefore, regulations on building heights were necessary to preserve the city’s skyline and to maintain a clear view of its significant landmarks. However, these restrictions on the number of stories and the height of buildings only apply in the vicinity of the government complex and along Hanuri Avenue. This results in a contrast where commercial buildings in the area are limited to eight floors, while residential apartment buildings elsewhere are 20 to 30 stories tall.   Consequently, Sejong’s skyline, initially intended to be framed by low mountains, is instead dominated by tall apartment buildings, obscuring views of key landmarks. Primary landmarks like the government complex, Millmaru Observatory, and Mount Gyeryong are often difficult to see and only visible up close.  Unlike other new cities primarily built to attract people from Seoul, Sejong carries the unique significance of being Korea’s only administrative city. Sejong set out with ambitious goals as Korea’s administrative capital. With themes of democracy and peace, the city aimed to create something innovative and fresh—a city focused on public transit, built without a central hub, and full of unique architecture you wouldn’t find elsewhere. However, efforts to reinforce the city’s theme have eroded some of Sejong’s functional value. A failure to effectively restrict the heights of buildings has resulted in large amounts of high-story apartment buildings, therefore ruining the city’s aesthetic. The execution of policies without adequate focus on resident convenience has also resulted in discomfort and further population outflow. The decentralized and public transportation-focused nature of Sejong was supposed to be its strength, but it is now a weakness due to its lack of practicality. Nevertheless, Sejong has the highest happiness rate in Korea and the lowest crime rates per unit of population, making it an attractive place to raise children. These favorable conditions have contributed to Sejong achieving the highest birth rate in the country. The challenge is retaining the rest of its population. In particular, the population of people in their 20s actually decreased in 2023. In South Korea, the number of individuals who choose to live on their own and without children makes up more than 30% of the population. For these individuals, entertainment and convenience take priority over family-oriented environments. With inconvenient transit and a deficiency of entertainment venues, Sejong fails to meet its priorities. This is an obstacle to the city’s efforts to attract and retain residents outside its demographic of young families. For Sejong to truly prosper, it must address the problems that residents are facing. If Sejong overcomes its challenges, the city can also appeal to child-free couples or one-person households. Creating a more practical environment while maintaining its family-friendly atmosphere and its unique role as an administrative city would bring the city closer to achieving its original goal of redistributing the population of the Seoul metropolitan area. As Sejong continues to grow and evolve, I hope it can one day be recognized as a thriving administrative capital.

Dear readers, have you ever found yourself intrigued by messages like “Automated Income: Build a system to earn 100 million won immediately without working,” “7-step life hacks to gain complete financial freedom,” or “The absolute law of success that will make you a happy, rich person”? Believe it or not, these flashy lines were featured in ads for some of last year’s best-selling books. Now, let me walk you to another corner of the bookstore. “Your forties are not a mistake. ” “After reading this book, all your anxiety will disappear. ” “You are the most precious thing in this universe. ” These, too, are advertisements for some of the most popular books. The fact that such messages are written on the covers of bestsellers probably means that many people actually expect to gain such things promised by reading these books. All these books fall under what we call “self-help books,” which underscores how much “self-improvement” has become a buzzword in Korea. Let’s back this up with some data. For instance, let’s dive into Google search trends for the term “self-improvement” from 2010 to 2023.  (purple: South Korea, Yellow: US, Gray: Japan)These trends measure interest, with 100 being the peak. Comparing South Korea, the United States, and Japan, the differences are stark. The U. S. stayed steady at around 50, while Japan dropped from 60 to the 40s. South Korea, though? Interest has skyrocketed from below 10 to over 60 in 2023. Temporarily during COVID-19, interest has shot up even higher, reaching levels close to 100. This tells us that while self-improvement started gaining traction later in Korea than in other countries, it’s now a bigger deal here than anywhere else. This rapid growth shows that Korea’s self-help trend is unique and is still on the rise. This societal sentiment is reflected in the books we read. The fact that certain books are widely read now is ultimately a response to the desires of the consuming public. Therefore, reading should be examined not just as an individual act but also on a more collective and cultural level. It forms a circular structure where the messages people seek are published, and those messages, in turn, are reinforced within society. That's why discussions about the book market can ultimately be a good lens for looking at Korean society. In other words, as mentioned at the beginning, if self-help books make up a large proportion of current Korean bestsellers, they cannot be considered separate from the intense social interest that Koreans have in self-improvement culture, as shown by the Google search results. In fact, the influence of self-help books in the Korean book market is considerable. Let’s look at the data from the Publication Industry Promotion Agency of Korea (KPIPA). Comparing the sales statistics by book genre in the publishing market, books classified as self-help books significantly outperformed other books in terms of sales volume, sales amount, annual growth rate, and unit price between 2022 and 2023. While the sales volume of self-help books grew by 19. 08% over a year, other genres saw an average increase of only 3. 96%. Sales amount also jumped by 29. 61% for self-help books, while other genres saw an increase of  11. 08%. Considering the most recent statistics by the Ministry of Culture, Sports, and Tourism that show an alarmingly low level of reading among Koreans, self-help books seem to be showing exceptional strength. When self-help books occupy the top three spots of Kyobo Bookstore’s annual bestseller list, what more needs to be said about their popularity?translation: Sales volume growth, sales amount growth, other genres VS self-help books, unit: millions So, what are these self-help books all about? The concept of “books that help you better who you are ” is perhaps too vague. What exactly makes these books resonate so strongly in Korean society? To answer that, the top 30 bestselling self-help books from Kyobo Bookstore in 2023 were analyzed. While they span different sub-genres, two distinct categories stand out. Let’s call them: “Guidebooks to Get Rich” and “Comforting Letters. ” These two types might seem worlds apart, but they both reveal fascinating insights into Korean society. Here’s a breakdown. Guidebooks to Get RichFirst, there are books that are guides on how to make money. These books appear to be for people who hope to become rich. Various methods are given on how to reach this end goal: change your language habits, take notes frequently, create a mindset to think 10 times bigger than before, and so on. The authors typically use the device of ‘rags to riches’ stories, saying that they, too, were once unremarkable, but by trying these methods, were able to quickly accumulate wealth. One book highlights the story of a former YouTuber author who says, “Just 10 years ago, he was an ordinary person receiving a monthly salary of 1. 6 million won. ” Another author, who introduces himself as the CEO of seven corporations and as a YouTuber, confesses that he “lived like a zombie without any thoughts, trapped by these walls: study, money, appearance”; he  “was at the bottom of the class at school and a mess in life. ” They also draw readers in with storytelling like, “That friend who used to live in a semi-basement, who didn’t stand out in studies or talent, has now become a man with immeasurable wealth. ” In this way, all these books that tell stories of people with humble beginnings making a lot of money in a short period of time and passing on tips that can be easily followed have become bestsellers. The promise is that if the author could do it, so can you. Online reviews reveal just how much readers buy into these ideas. Comments like “I love the author’s heart and their willingness to share this life-changing advice” or “I’m planning to reread this book 100 times because it’s that good” show how these books tap into people’s hope and belief in a brighter future. And the methods mentioned are shockingly simple. For example, one book claims, “If you say it out loud a thousand times, your wish will surely come true. ” It gives the feeling that just by reading a book, one might be able to manifest a different reality. Comforting LettersSecond, there are books that are like warm letters that comfort readers. The target audience here is “tired people. ” Keywords like “fatigue, irritation, anxiety” repeatedly appear in the marketing of these books. The messages they impart seem to deeply touch the members of Korean society who are all living difficult lives in a highly competitive world. For example, there was a best-selling book offering advice to people in their 40s who think it’s too late to start something new or are experiencing a midlife crisis. Another book that collected words from writers, philosophers, and spiritual gurus, emphasizing the importance of enjoying the present, has also gained popularity. In fact, these books don’t offer any concrete solutions. Their main significance lies in understanding and diagnosing the struggles of their readers. And they remind us of things we’ve overlooked while living busy lives in soft and elegant sentences. Though obvious at times, the “wisdom” is often packaged in a unique way using philosophical, abstract, instructive, and even spiritual language. This is how these self-help books sympathize with the inevitably negative emotions experienced by people in modern society and heal wounds. The act of purchasing such warm comfort seems to provide psychological ease to today’s Koreans. Buyer reviews included remarks such as “I gifted it for peace of mind,” and “Reading the prologue that said it’s okay to solve only half of life’s homework, I felt sincerely comforted for the first time in a long while. ” In a modern society that demands more effort and achievement, messages like “you don’t have to try that hard” or “you are enough as you are” that cheer people up seem to be exactly what many people want to hear. Common Ground: Dissatisfaction with LifeAt first glance, the simultaneous popularity of these two categories of self-help books seemed to be quite contradictory. One tells you to hustle harder; the other tells you to relax and let go. One uses tough language and goal-oriented narratives, while the other instills one with the courage to be satisfied with the present through the use of abstract and comforting words. But beneath the surface, both categories of self-help exist to capitalize off of the same thing: dissatisfaction with one’s current life. Because people are dissatisfied with their current lives, they either seek easy solutions to obtain a materially abundant lifestyle, or they seek magical sentences that sympathize and understand how difficult they have it. People who buy “Guidebooks to Get Rich” feel their lives would be better if only they had more money. Meanwhile, those drawn to “Comforting Letters” want relief from the stress of trying so hard. Both categories reflect a yearning to escape the struggles of life. The trends of the self-help book market arise from essentially the same perception of reality. The Problems with These BooksOf course, there’s nothing wrong with cultivating various abilities and the mind to become a better self that achieves one’s own goals. However, it’s true that there are concerning points in the recent self-help book trend. Let’s point out why this is problematic. First, books that teach how to become rich focus on the goal of self-improvement only in the monetary sense. The fact that many people want this proves how obsessive our society is toward financial success. If these books continue to fuel this collective obsession, it could go as extreme as unhealthy behaviors like money worship. Also, they suggest very simple solutions as if they are really the shortcuts to becoming rich, while most of them are actually rather improbable. People captivated by and believing in the “shortcuts” may blame themselves and their perceived lack of effort in practicing the solutions when their financial state does not change.  It’s not easy to say that books that call for healing are always proper either. They also risk making people settle where they are rather than improving themselves. People may feel encouraged to avoid problems rather than persevere to reach healthy growth. In other words, while it’s good to comfort the mind, we need to recognize the limitation that the message may not be pragmatic as long as we live in the real world. Strictly speaking, this would not “help” anyone improve themselves, despite the name “self-help books. ”A Reflection of SocietyIn this way, this article acknowledges the presence of books as a reflection of society and looks into the popular self-improvement culture in Korea through an analysis of the self-help book market. By analyzing the self-help book market, we gain a window into Korean people’s psyche. These books reveal a nation grappling with the fast pace and pressure of modern life, longing for a better, happier existence. By providing simple solutions and actionable steps, self-help books can empower individuals and give them a sense of control over their lives. Explaining the two categories of self-help books and mentioning their potential risks is not to blame or criticize them—many people might consider them a valuable resource for personal growth. Nevertheless, it’s crucial to approach self-help books with a balanced perspective and to recognize the potential flaws of such simplified advice. We should approach them with caution, remembering that they reflect a society deeply affected by competition and dissatisfaction. The key to happiness isn’t contained in a single self-help book. What we need is a broader discussion about the social structures making life so difficult in the first place. We must address the systemic factors that contribute to individual struggles and discuss the solutions together.

Late night on Tuesday, December 3rd, President Yoon Seok-yeol declared emergency martial law on national television, sending shockwaves throughout the country. All media showed live footage of the military being dispatched to the National Assembly, where members of the assembly were headed to try to nullify this measure at once. The image of police buses barricading the main gate, armed troops and civilians interlocked in a struggle, and lawmakers—including the chairman—jumping the National Assembly gates to get inside the building, was altogether reminiscent of a time when Korea was under authoritarian rule and protesting for democratization in the 80s. Lamentably, the country had to witness history repeat itself in 2024.  President Yoon’s move took everyone by surprise. Although the National Assembly managed to lift the martial law in a matter of hours, many questions still remain: why did this happen? How was this even possible? What was Yoon thinking? Where do we go from here? It may not yet be possible to give definitive answers but here, we attempt to shed some light on the past and potential progression of events, Yoon’s rationale and its reception, and a brief history of martial law in contemporary Korean history that shows why this issue holds such significance among the people today.  Why did this happen, and how did the events unfold?At around 10:30 P. M. on Tuesday, December 3rd, President Yoon Seok-yeol, in an urgent public address, declared emergency martial law to combat what he described as “unprecedented threats to South Korea’s democratic institutions and national stability. ” Citing repeated impeachment attempts and severe budget cuts by the opposing Democratic Party (the current parliamentary majority), Yoon accused the party of attempting to “overthrow the liberal democratic system. ” He vowed to eradicate anti-state forces and protect the country and its Constitution from “threats of North Korean communist forces,” which he implied is upheld by the opposition party. Subsequently, a martial law command post was established, gaining temporary authority to conduct military and administrative actions. At 11 P. M. , it issued the first decree, the contents of which included the prohibition of any political activities including National Assemblies, rallies, protests or strikes, and strict control of the press and publishing, etc. Notably, Article 6 of the decree singled out all medical personnel, who have been on a long-term strike since the beginning of the year, requiring them to return immediately to their posts within 48 hours. Anyone failing to abide by the decree could be arrested, detained, or searched without a warrant, and would be subject to trial in a military court. Lawmakers rushed to the parliament to take a vote against the martial law. At the same time, soldiers equipped with guns and night vision goggles were also trying to force their way into the building, backed by helicopters and armored vehicles. Whether the soldiers were equipped with live ammunition is still unknown. As the troops made their way from the main gates to the building entrance, civilians and parliamentary aides attempted to block their paths. Meanwhile, lawmakers trickled in, ultimately amounting to 190 members, thus satisfying the quorum. The vote was held shortly past 1 A. M. on Wednesday, December 4th, and the parliament unanimously voted to reject the president’s declaration. The president, after staying silent for two hours, announced at around 4:30 A. M. that he would lift the martial law. In total, South Korea was under martial law for around six hours.  What is martial law, and how does it work?Martial law signifies military rule, or military control of civilian government affairs in times of national emergency in order to maintain public well-being and safety. It is classified into two types: guarding and emergency martial law. The former allows the martial commander to have control over matters related to the military; the latter, in contrast, gives the commander total control of all administrative and legislative matters, including civil ones. Essentially, under emergency martial law, the President gains full control over all branches of the state. The latter, a more escalated type of martial law, was the one President Yoon had declared. Article 77 of the Korean Constitution states that the President may proclaim martial law under grave national emergencies—“war, armed conflict, or a similar national emergency”—in order to maintain public safety and order. The President is required to report this decision to the National Assembly immediately. The same article also states the right of the parliament to request the lifting of martial law with the vote of a majority of the total members of the National Assembly. Upon receiving such a request, the President is bound by the Constitution to comply. The Constitution hence ensures the separation of powers: declaring martial law is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, and lifting it falls under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch.   When has martial law been declared in the past?Martial law was declared for the first time in Korea in 1948, and has since been declared a total of 16 times—12 being emergency martial law, and 4 being guarding martial law. Most recently in history, martial law was declared on May 17th, 1980 following a coup d'état, shortly after which countless civilians were killed by the state’s armed forces during a  protest against the coup in the southern city of Gwangju. The “5. 18 Gwangju democratization movement” was a tragic yet pivotal moment in Korean history, which has served as a hallmark of the Nation’s fight for democracy. Martial law had not been declared by any president since then. That makes the emergency martial law decreed by President Yoon on Tuesday the first of its kind in 44 years, the first one in the 21st century.  What do people think? What’s next?The Republic of Korea is home to a hard-earned democracy, having been through a turbulent period of military dictatorship and violent transfers of power throughout its history. For a significant portion of the population, the struggle of democratization is still clearly etched into memory. The younger generation, in turn, has heard enough stories from parents and grandparents to know the gravity of the issue. Naturally, the subject of authoritarianism is a sore spot—one that the country thought had already healed from, but was cut wide open by these recent events. The country is deeply perplexed as to what exactly Yoon intended to achieve through this seemingly rushed decision. Many are interpreting his move as a desperate Hail Mary, as the President was increasingly backed into a corner by the opposing party and was facing a crisis in his political career. Others believe that he had an elaborate plan in mind, which didn’t come to fruition because of the military’s lackluster performance. In any case, the most important question to be asked is the legality of Yoon’s decision and its execution. Was the situation at hand—“severe political opposition” and vaguely-worded references to “North Korean threats”—so substantial as to satisfy the condition of “war, armed conflict or a similar national emergency,” as stated in the Constitution? Wasn’t his decision to prohibit all political activities, including that of the National Assembly, a fundamental violation of the separation of powers? With further investigation revealing more evidence that the President may have acted in violation of the Martial Law Act, the Democratic Party now believes there are more than enough grounds for impeachment. They are set to take this matter to a vote as early as this Friday. Meanwhile, concerns of dictatorship and the ‘backsliding’ of democracy ring loud and clear amongst the Koreans—alarmed citizens are flocking to Gwanghwamun, demanding for Yoon to step down or to be arrested for insurrection. The students of Seoul National University, Yoon’s alma mater, are also raising their voices by issuing statements and gathering on campus to call for Yoon to be stripped of office. Korean society is putting up a united front to defend our democracy and our rights. The people have spoken, but whether Yoon will listen, remains to be seen.

Kyopo: The Spocks and Clark Kents All Around UsThink about all the television shows starring a human-like being who looks very much like us, but doesn’t understand anything about our culture, or way of life. They bumble their way through, trying (and failing at times) to understand what it means to be one in the crowd, often standing out like a sore thumb. The premise makes for good TV—we have our Clark Kents, Spocks, and Doctor Whos, who at first glance pass as human, but upon close examination, do not truly behave human-ly. And while it is endlessly entertaining to see the ways in which Spock’s Vulcan background causes him to speak stiffly and solve problems with pure logic, or to see Superman try to understand the limitations of humans who aren’t quite as “Super” as him, there also are many episodes dedicated to how lonely it must feel to be the one outlying individual living among millions of others who are largely similar. This is not too different from what the Kyopo face on a day-to-day basis, especially those who currently live in Korea. Although the Kyopo look very much like your typical Korean, they actually come from completely different cultural backgrounds. Just like Clark Kent, Kyopo often deal with loneliness as they try to fit into the largely homogenous Korean society. Our Bretheren from OverseasWho exactly are “Kyopo”? The literal Hanja translation of “Kyopo” is “siblings/brethren from overseas”. Kyopo are part of the Korean diaspora and the term is commonly used to refer to descendants of early emigrants from Korea whose family history stretches back for generations in their countries of residence, or it can refer to recent immigrants who have spent comparatively less time living overseas. Around 84. 5% of Kyopo live within 5 countries: China, the US, Japan, Canada, and Uzbekistan, with the US and China hosting the vast majority of Kyopo at around 2. 5 million each. If you consider the fact that the global Kyopo population stands at 7. 3 million, compared to the 51. 6 million people living in Korea, we can see that the number of Kyopo is nothing to scoff at, and they represent a huge and significant population of ethnic Koreans. This large number of Kyopo is also quite a recent phenomenon, as migration out of Korea was reportedly scarce until the late 19th century. Even then, most of Korea’s migrants would move to China and Russia due to their geographic adjacence. Japan began hosting many Korean immigrants, particularly after the Japanese occupation of Korea, as many Koreans (both forcibly and voluntarily) moved to the Japanese Empire. As for further flung countries like the United States, massive growth in the population of Kyopo was triggered by key historical and political events like the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 (which removed immigration quotas for ethnic groups), and the large number of orphans from the Korean War brought over to the US. With a significant difference between their new host country and Korea, many Kyopo decide to live in ethnic enclaves within their host countries, in or around huge concentrations of fellow Kyopo. “K-Towns” are the colloquial names given to these areas, where many find a sense of community due to their shared cultural background. Kyopo are better able to provide support for each other within K-Towns, as they face similar pressures and hold similar values. This can include running H-Marts stocked with often “scarcely available” traditional Korean ingredients such as Korean chili paste (Gochujang) and running facilities like Korean-speaking churches, Korean weekend schools, or Taekwondo schools, which are in high demand among Kyopo. The Complex Identity of KyopoAs with most ethnic diasporas, Kyopos face seemingly paradoxical pressures. On the one hand, there is the need to adapt to life in their countries of residence; on the other hand, there is the need to feel connected to Korea. Navigating these pressures becomes even more complicated when we consider the varied identities of Kyopo individuals. Some consider themselves citizens of their current nation first and of Korea second; some feel the opposite, and some feel like they are a unique combination of both, with a more fluid ethnic identity. Physical appearance has also been a serious point of contention over a Kyopo’s “Korean-ness”. In theory, if someone who has a Korean biological parent and has non-Korean-looking physical features wishes to identify as ethnically Korean, they should be allowed to do so. But whether Korean society would be willing to accept an ethnic Korean with “non-Korean features” is certainly still up for debate. The fact that many K-Pop idols with such features have been questioned about their parentage and hounded about their supposed “nation of origin” even when these matters have little relevance suggests that issues of physical appearance are still not a small matter in terms of “being Korean”, with Kyopo not being an exception to this scrutiny and judgement. Conversely, other Kyopo reference how even though they may look like a “native Korean,” their cover is blown the minute they start speaking Korean. Even with native-level Korean proficiency, because of their detachment from the locals’ mannerisms, slang, and speech patterns, their Korean might sound dated at best and downright offensive at worst. This is especially the case when it comes to honorifics and formalities, as they are explicitly required when speaking to other Koreans on different rungs of the social hierarchy. Many Kyopo cite the common faux pas of accidentally speaking in the wrong formality, with a common example being using annyeong instead of the honorific annyeonghaseyo to a senior. As many Kyopo grow up only speaking limited or informal Korean with their parents and friends, they likely have little experience with flexibly utilizing formal and informal speech in the day-to-day. Transitioning to a much more socially complex conversation style is an uphill battle for Kyopo, as they require more thinking when formulating sentences, even before vocabulary and grammar come into the picture. Beyond Mere Appearances?The problems presented earlier seem to be relatively surface level, based on physical appearances, speech, and day-to-day behavior. However, there is a deeper dimension that makes it difficult for Kyopo to find a true sense of belonging even if they “appear Korean” and speak fluent, socially acceptable Korean. This is mainly because, underlying these conflicts premised on physical differences is a deeper undercurrent of cultural differences that often separate Western countries from Eastern countries. Especially those Kyopo who have received a Western upbringing are exposed to more liberal ideologies than native Koreans are used to. As such, they are faced with a more critical challenge in their day-to-day lives: the problem of clashing cultures, values, and norms. Kyopo may adopt more individualistic orientations, or find it more socially acceptable to express their true thoughts and intentions. One Kyopo exchange student at SNU expressed that though he enjoys talking about politics, he found out that he is unable to do so openly in Korea and expressed shock that it was “taboo to speak about it with others. ”Another Kyopo exchange student expressed that she felt “the differences in perspectives and values create a substantial gap when interacting with native Koreans. ” She expressed that while she does value education and academics, she also believes it is important to exercise creativity. She noted that native Koreans tend not to value creativity as much, instead focusing far heavily on academic attainment. Many Kyopo exchange students further expressed the notion that “in the native Korean community, the hierarchical structure is prevalent in every aspect, including the way people address each other and the power dynamics. ” With a culture that generally prefers conformity, uniformity, and a strict system of hierarchy, Kyopo with a more liberal orientation may find it difficult to accept these values, given that the culture seems to run completely against Western values of individualism and self-expression. A clash of values further exacerbates the increasingly prevalent stereotypes about Kyopo spread amongst native Koreans, who sometimes use the term “Kyopo” itself with a negative connotation. In these contexts, instead of being an objective point of reference, the term can act as a label that is associated with the stereotypical emigrant who has lost touch with their Korean roots as a result of staying overseas. A Kyopo, in the negative sense, is thought to have adopted laissez-faire values incompatible with traditional Korean ones. As such, some instead prefer to use the term dongpo, meaning “brethren,” to emphasize the close connections among various overseas groups, even though “Kyopo” is still the more colloquially used and instantly recognizable term. Lowering the Entry Barrier for KyopoIt seems like Korea is a place where the entry barrier is high. Looking the part only scratches the surface. The road to Korean-ness"" is seemingly scattered with various hurdles that Kyopo need to jump over: native-level proficiency in the language, a full understanding of the social hierarchy, a willingness to compromise or even give up their values altogether. Some feel that if they stumble over any one of these, the entry barrier to Korean society will grow taller, out of reach. All this coupled together makes it a difficult space for Kyopo trying to find a sense of warmth and comfort. The question now is: how can we help to break down Korea’s prickly exterior and help Kyopo to find a sense of home in Korea?There is no one simple answer, but being more open to having honest conversations and trying to understand, even if it is difficult to relate to the mixed identity that Kyopo have, are all small steps in the right direction. Kyopo exchange students do acknowledge that they “have a more westernized perspective compared to native Koreans,” but crucially, they display great pride in stating that “[their] roots still lie in Korean culture and values”. Perhaps instead of focusing on the differences between Kyopo and native Koreans, the better way to approach this would be to harken back to the original definition of Kyopo, as “siblings/brethren from overseas”. Imagine if your sibling were to travel overseas. They may change their appearances to fit into the local environment, and may even have a shift in worldviews stemming from their different experiences. They may even come back as a completely changed person that you may have trouble recognizing. But this doesn’t mean that you pick on these changes, however drastic they are, or that you treat them differently because of that. In fact, there is much more room to find interest in their different ways of life and to ask them questions about their time overseas, understanding their differences instead of shunning them. As “siblings from overseas,” Kyopo wish to be welcomed, have their differences understood, and be guided patiently as they find their own unique personal space in a Korea that is so foreign yet so homely to a Kyopo. As brethren and kindred spirits who have more in common than different, Koreans and Kyopo need to make earnest attempts to bridge this gap, because it is only with well-intentioned, kind gestures that the road to acceptance and inclusion is gradually paved. "

The spot price of gold hit a record high of $2,364 per ounce in April. This is a significant rise, as gold was traded at $2,000 per ounce merely a year ago. This means that gold prices are up 16. 5%, or over 300 dollars. According to the World Gold Council(WGC), China’s central bank, and the People’s Bank of China(PBC) was the largest official sector buyer of gold in 2023 at 225 tons; PBC has been snapping up gold for 18 months straight, with its holdings of gold rising 16% over 17 months. The value of China’s gold reserves rose to $168 billion at the end of April. However, it’s not just China where we see this happening. The gold buying spree is a global trend among central banks. According to the WGC, worldwide central bank purchases of gold in 2023 increased by 152% compared to the year before. Okay. It seems that central banks are buying up gold these days. So what? Isn’t gold a matter of countries and official sectors? Isn’t gold investment just for the elderly? This might be what the typical Korean undergraduate is thinking by now. Last semester, when a Chinese teacher in one of the classes at Seoul National University told students about gold investment among Chinese people to secure a safe haven, most students simply laughed it off. However, as an individual investor, you should know that even Gen Z investors in China and Costco customers in the U. S. are buying up large amounts of gold. The current global gold rush is much too significant to be casually dismissed. So, what’s behind the surge in gold prices and the global gold-buying spree? Should we really care about gold investments? Why is gold “money” while the dollar is not? We need to first clarify the distinction between “money” and “currency”, which is best explained in terms of space. While gold and currency both take up physical space, it’s only gold that takes up space in the intangible realm of value. Gold is a precious metal that is valuable in and of itself. Therefore, gold is classified as money, which refers to an intangible system of value. It is a “store of value” that maintains a certain worth now and in the future. The dollar, however, technically holds no intrinsic value. That is why it is a currency. Currency is simply a tangible form of money (in the form of paper, checks, and deposits) used as a “medium of exchange” for goods and services. Currency could become a useless pile of paper because its value plunges depending on the situation. Since gold has an intrinsic value and has proven to be a hedge against inflation, it remains the ultimate safe haven asset. For convenience, people began to store gold in institutions in the form of receipts, which one could exchange for gold any time. People equated these receipts with actual gold, and very few actually traded in their receipts. This receipt is a form of currency, which includes the US Dollar. Even after President Nixon terminated the convertibility of the dollar to gold in 1971, people continued to believe that this currency held value. However, this belief is fundamentally unstable, as the value of currency decreases over time. This is because as time progresses, the physical amount of currency increases. Why is that? Limited amounts of currency in the market lead to decreased demand in consumption, and this leads to economic recession. Thus, to boost consumption, the government prints more currency and grants more loans to people. Since only a small percentage of the currency issued actually ends up being exchanged for gold, the government can distribute a large amount of currency that significantly exceeds the amount of gold. Overflow of currency in circulation could lead to the worst-case scenario. In the face of a severe economic or geopolitical crisis, people start to become concerned about not being able to get their gold back. This prompts them to try to withdraw their gold from the banks. Since the amount of gold is limited, its price will soar until all the issued currency can be exchanged for gold. For example, let’s suppose the government initially issued 100 dollars for 100 bars of gold; at this time, one bar is worth one dollar. Over time, the amount of dollars in circulation rises to 5,000. If a total of 5,000 dollars needs to be exchanged for the same 100 bars of gold, the price of one bar of gold will soar to 50 dollars. Conversely, the value of each dollar will plunge, becoming mere scraps of paper. While the scenario might sound improbable, history tells us that the value of currency always falls—and when it plunges, humankind always goes back to gold. For example, gold prices jumped by 50. 6% between September 2010 and September 2011, as people sought safety after the Great Recession in 2008. The latest example is the rise in gold prices post-COVID-19. As governments lowered interest rates and provided large amounts of stimulus checks to boost the economy, there was a post-COVID inflation spike, reducing the value of currency. On top of this, unprecedented economic uncertainties and concerns about a potential recession caused a 27% rise in gold prices by the summer of 2020, compared to January of the same year. Even when there is no economic turmoil, we live in a world of constant inflation. This graph shows the change in the price of a $100 product over time, showing that the value of currency has been in a state of constant decline since 1971. What’s causing the surge in gold prices? Currently, gold prices are rising against the traditional formula: even though inflation is alleviated and the dollar is still strong, gold prices are on the rise. Wall Street is puzzled, but there may be an explanation. Investor expectations could be driving this phenomenon, as the Federal Reserve is expected to cut its interest rate in September. Since lowered interest rates lead to an increased amount of dollars in circulation, investors are expecting inflation. Historically, during periods when the interest rate was too low to cover the effects of high inflation, people turned to gold as a hedge. Also, a popular belief is that gold prices have an inverse relationship with interest rates. Gold is denominated in dollars, so in times of inflation when the dollar is weaker, gold seems cheaper and more attractive for buyers using non-dollar currencies. This pulls gold demand higher, leading to a surge in gold prices. Since gold investment provides no interest rate or dividend, while higher interest rates make investments like bonds more attractive, lower interest rates bring down the opportunity cost of not having more of their money invested in bonds. However, interest rate cuts offer only a partial explanation of the current situation. We must note that central banks’ ongoing voracious appetite has increased the gold demand, pushing up gold prices. Central bank demand for gold in 2024 showed the strongest start to any year on record, showing that the demand will remain robust this year. Heightened geopolitical uncertainty is highlighted as the key to explaining the active gold rally of central banks to pile up gold as a safe haven. How is geopolitical turmoil influencing gold demand?First, geopolitical turmoil often disrupts global supply chains and financial markets. Since gold has historically maintained its value throughout various economic turmoils, central banks are trying to secure more gold. Currently, escalating tensions in the Middle East could disrupt oil supplies. Since oil prices are one of the major driving forces behind inflation, investors are motivated to invest in gold. Unlike currencies or stocks, gold retains value independently of any one country’s economic performance and government policies. For example, gold is not directly affected by interest rate decisions, corporate profitability, or economic sanctions. Currently, there is huge uncertainty over the global economy, with the consequences of the November U. S. presidential election still unknown. The Russo-Ukrainian War, possible conflict between China and the U. S. , and elections planned in more than 60 countries this year are all factors contributing to the heightened geopolitical uncertainty. The increasing uncertainty is driving central banks to seek refuge in gold as a safe haven. At the same time, central banks around the world are trying to diversify their foreign exchange reserves away from US dollars. Countries worldwide have been spooked by the U. S. ’s use of the dollar-based global financial system to punish Russia. Growing distrust towards the dollar has driven BRICS countries to reduce dollars and U. S. government bonds in foreign exchange reserves. In fact, nine of the top ten central banks that have recently purchased the most gold are countries challenging the dollar hegemony, most notably Russia, India, and China. Many consider de-dollarization impossible, but the dollar is a currency that depends entirely on the world’s “trust” and “faith. ” If the distrust spreads to even more countries, the world may start questioning the stability of the dollar system. Is it the right time to invest in gold? And is it okay for Korea to ignore gold investment? While Chinese and American Gen Z investors are “gold rushing,” Korean Gen Z investors are too focused on financial assets like stocks. However, it is basic investment knowledge that financial assets like stocks or bonds, and real assets like gold alternate in their heyday over a certain period. When everyone invests in stocks, a “stock market bubble” occurs, which means that the stocks are traded at a price that greatly exceeds the asset’s intrinsic value. This is followed by a quick decrease in value, which is referred to as a “bubble burst. ” Historically, the heyday of gold starts right when a bubble burst happens, and it lasts until people migrate back to stocks. Historically, the rise in gold price typically lasts for about 10 years and is called a “supercycle”. As all signs indicate that a supercycle already started in 2019, gold price is most likely to rise until 2029. This means that we are in the middle of the cycle, and can anticipate a greater rise ahead. This is why Korean Gen Zs should also consider portfolio diversification, which is to combine investments that are not closely correlated with one another. Properly diversified investors would combine financial asset investments with gold, a safe asset, to reduce risk. Gold—unlike stocks, bonds, or bitcoin—takes up physical space in the form of jewelry, bars, and coins. Storing gold might seem burdensome and old-fashioned as it takes up too much space. However, in times when you cannot trust assets that exist digitally or virtually, you just might wish you had saved some room for gold. Young Korean investors are not the only odd ones out in this gold rush because Korea’s central bank, Bank of Korea (BOK), is not very different. Gold reserves of Korea have remained unchanged since BOK bought 90 tons in 2011-2013. Earlier this year, the bank officially announced that they have no plans to increase their gold reserves. Korean gold reserves are already very low. While Korea is the 13th largest economy in the world by GDP and the world’s ninth largest holder of foreign reserves, its gold reserves are only the 36th largest among global central banks, according to the WGC. Gold makes up only 1. 7% of Korean foreign exchange reserves. BOK’s position is in stark contrast to other countries worldwide, who are thinking on their feet to try to secure enough gold, which will ultimately be a country’s last resort to safeguard against economic and geopolitical crises. Is it really okay for BOK to ignore gold reserves? Should there be a global crisis, Korea will not, by any means, be immune to it. Therefore, BOK should consider jumping on the gold bandwagon. It is time for the Korean government and investors to diversify their asset portfolios. Otherwise, Korea will risk too much. Although the price of gold may not skyrocket in the short run, it has always maintained its value over the long term and is useful as a hedge. If you view investment as a lifetime game and not just a one-time gamble, gold investment is a game you will never lose.

In November 2017, the television series Prison Playbook took South Korea by storm. The series displayed various aspects of life in prison, ranging from the reformation programs to the punishments and the restrictions set on the prisoners. The show gained its fame mainly due to the balance between the depiction of various crimes that exist in modern society and the characters’ personal growth. The show illustrates prison as a facility that allows prisoners to reflect on their crimes and reform through human interactions in a hospitable but controlled environment. While the show does reflect the ideal role of a prison, it fails to depict a key problem that prisons face today in Korea: overcrowding. Why Does Overcrowding Matter?According to the Human Rights Peace research facility, the number of prisoners incarcerated has been on the rise ever since the beginning of the Yoon administration. As of September 2023, there are 58,583 prisoners nationwide. Based on the increasing number of prisoners the government is incarcerating, this number is predicted to rise to around 60,000 by the end of 2024. That would be the highest since 1998, when the number of prisoners peaked at a record high of over 67,000. During this time, Korea was going through the 1997 Asian financial crisis, forcing the Korean market to restructure itself to create more flexibility and overcome the crisis with the help of the International Monetary Fund. In the process, a lot of criminals saw new opportunities in the field of economic crime and acted upon them. As the nation made a quick recovery from the financial crisis, it also witnessed a sudden rise in criminals being captured. Unlike the rise of prisoners in 1998, the increase right now did not happen due to a single huge incident. The current administration has made it clear that it will have a “zero tolerance” policy towards criminals and that they’d try their best to make the country as crime-free as possible. With the government working to meet the goal it has set for itself, the rise in the number of prisoners itself is not surprising. The problem is that the current prison facilities seem to be unable to keep up with the growth. Currently, South Korea has a total of 55 operational prisons. Of the 55 prisons, 42 were reported to be “heavily overcrowded” as of 2023. When combined, these prisons are designed to hold around 49,600 prisoners—far less than the last reported number. This means that prisons are holding about 18% more people than their intended capacity, forcing the prisoners to live in heavily confined spaces. So, exactly how confined are the living spaces in these prisons? According to the Korean Ministry of Justice, the current standard of living space provided for a prisoner is set at 2. 58 square meters. This is already a very compact space for someone to live in, especially compared to the value set by other global organizations. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross recommends 5. 40 square meters as the minimum space required for a prisoner to live humanely. While it is true that this number is not completely applicable to Korean prisons specifically, the fact that the Korean standard is less than half of what the Red Cross recommends shows the serious lack of living area in Korean prisons. Worse, even this cramped living space is not being provided in most prisons. An investigation made by the National Human Rights Commission in January 2022 revealed that many prisons had their inmates live in areas as tight as 1. 40 square meters, which is a little over half of the minimum living space set by the Ministry of Justice. A follow-up investigation made in early 2024 showed that living conditions in many prisons are still yet to be improved. The overcrowding situation has even resulted in the National Human Rights Commission claiming that the current living conditions of prisons such as the Sangju Prison in Gyeongsangbuk-do Sangju infringe on the inmates' human dignity, publicly requesting the Ministry of Justice to fix this problem. Besides the physical discomfort that comes with it, being forced to live in close quarters can also lead prisoners to face extreme mental stress. One might claim that the mental stress that the inmates go through is both intentional and insignificant, given that the reason they are incarcerated in the first place is to be punished for their individual crimes. However, one must also not forget that another major purpose of prisons is to rehabilitate convicts into law-abiding citizens. To help these criminals reform, prisons offer a wide variety of programs and work to give their inmates chances to reflect on their past actions. However, these attempts at reformation end up being ineffective if the inmates are unable to fully concentrate on the programs, and the subpar living standards are a huge reason that they cannot concentrate. Inmates tend to feel more stressed, and suffer from severe mental and physical pain if they are forced into a cramped confined living space after a taxing day of work and education. There have been lawsuits in the past where the inmates demanded the government to provide financial compensation for the pain they suffered from the overcrowding. While these claims were dismissed in the past, the overcrowding has escalated to the point that the court is beginning to recognize it as a serious problem. In July 2022, the court stated for the first time in history that the overcrowding and the confined living spaces infringe on the prisoners’ basic rights, ruling that the government should provide compensation. A similar lawsuit that concluded in November 2023 also ruled in favor of the inmates, forcing the government to pay out a compensation fee of 136 million won to 50 ex-cons. Building New PrisonsSo, what is the best way to fix the overcrowding problem? The simple yet effective answer to this question is to build new prisons. The government is fully aware of this potential solution, which is why it currently plans to build six new prisons. Once these facilities are built, it would technically resolve the issue of overcrowding, allowing the prisons to fully function as correctional facilities. However, there is a big obstacle to the construction of new prisons: the strong backlash by communities. Currently, prisons are commonly viewed as NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) facilities by a large majority of society. These facilities are essential for society, yet they cause many people to worry about the various negative impacts that could lead to social conflict. Hence, while people are not opposed to the concept of building new prisons, they are generally against the idea of having one built in their own communities. They are not only hesitant about having new prisons near them but are also aggressive at times. There are communities even today that are actively raising their voices to oppose these establishments in their neighborhoods. For example, the government is planning on building a women’s correctional institution in Gyeonggi-do Hwaseong that will open in 2026. As there is currently only one operational women’s prison in Korea, currently located in Chungcheongbuk-do Cheongju, the construction of a new facility in Hwaseong would significantly help with the overcrowding issue. However, the local community has been strongly combatting the construction ever since 2021, and their opposition still persists. The main reason for the resistance is the possibility of the neighborhood gaining a bad reputation. While they do recognize the importance of NIMBY facilities, people fear that having these facilities in the neighborhood could cause social tension. When unsolved, the tension negatively impacts the neighborhood’s overall image, damaging the financial values of various assets. People’s negative impression of prisons have existed for a long time, making it very hard to change, and this only solidifies people’s resistance against prisons in their neighborhoods. Currently, the most effective method of improving prison’s predominantly negative image is building related facilities alongside prisons, creating small “legal communities” within the pre-existing communities. A prime example of this is the Munjeong Legal Town located in Songpa-gu, Seoul. In this town, there are various legal facilities as well as educational centers and restaurants located alongside the Eastern Detention Center of Seoul. Towns like these allow prisons to blend in with the rest of the community, naturally planting the impression that prisons are no longer NIMBY facilities in people’s minds. Thus, when executed well, legal towns like these can help improve the predominantly negative image people have regarding correctional facilities. No More StallingPrison overcrowding is a problem that has gone by relatively unnoticed for years, but resolving it cannot be put off any longer. The longer this issue is left unattended, the bigger the negative impact it will have on society. The simplest solution to this would be to build new prisons, as it would ultimately help with the effectiveness of the correctional programs for rehabilitating the inmates. While the benefits of new prisons are clear, the predominant impression people have towards prisons is a huge obstacle that must be addressed. There is no easy way to gain people’s approval for new prisons, but for the prisons to operate functionally, gaining the community’s support is something that must be ensured. Ultimately, it is the government’s responsibility to create an environment where the new prison can coexist with the preexisting community.

Having a place to live is a fundamental part of our well-being and happiness. Over the past few years, South Korea has been facing housing problems, as the supply of houses does not meet the demand―a strange phenomenon, as Korea’s population rate is actually declining year by year. According to Statistics Korea, the housing supply rate in 2022 was lowest in large cities such as Seoul(93. 7%) and Incheon(97. 9%), and highest in rural Gyeongbuk(113. 2%) and Jeonnam(112. 4%). Considering that Seoul has the highest population density in the country, the index especially indicates the hardships of satisfying housing demands in urban areas. Diminishing housing supply and rising prices can be explained by multiple reasons, such as the government’s real estate policies, increase in single-person households, slowdowns in real estate markets and so on. The housing problem mostly affects people in their 20s and 30s, most of whom live in large cities and have only very recently earned a job. These new members of the workforce population are struggling to stand on their own feet and find a place to live due to financial difficulties and the slow pace of housing supplies. With hardships in real estate markets during the pandemic, people have generally struggled with financial burdens as living expenses have risen. Accordingly, the South Korean government has been trying to address the issue by implementing easier loaning systems, expanding public housing, and lifting property and construction-related regulations in Seoul. However, the effectiveness of such policies can be questioned in the long term, as they do not address the root cause. In fact, the housing crisis stems from much more fundamental issues, such as young adults’ financial difficulties and unstable lives. Thus, government actions and policies need a more serious approach to this underlying issue, as it is the primary step towards a better environment for young generations in our society. In order to help young adults in the housing market, it is necessary to first look at the overall quality of their lives. Korea’s continuously declining population and low birth rates seem paradoxical at first, given the shortage in housing supply. However, this can easily be explained by the fact that, in spite of the population crisis, the number of single-person households across the country has risen dramatically, which has resulted in over-demand and under-supply of houses. In the case of Seoul, the population decline was outnumbered by an astounding 39. 3% rise in single-person households in 2022 compared to that of 2015. Most single-person households in Korean society consist of people under the age of 29, who generally have lower incomes compared to older populations. Many have also moved to the cities from more rural areas to find employment. Yet, although there are more job opportunities in the cities, the labor market is still highly competitive and does not guarantee a stable living. In this case, the main factor causing people to live alone comes from the high expenses in central cities, which comes down to financial issues. The average monthly rent of a single-household in Seoul appears to be 630,000 KRW, which takes up about 35% of the average salary of a young adult. The financial burden young adults undergo from this high rental fee is much heavier, followed by food and transportation costs. There are also other significant reasons as to why the housing problem should be taken more seriously, as it is the cause of a variety of social issues. Not being able to afford a house has resulted in many people becoming a “kangaroo tribe,” a term referring to young adults who have failed to grow financially independent from their parents. A government survey from 2024 covering 15,000 households across the country showed that 57. 5% of young adults live with their parents, followed by 22. 6% living as single-units, and only 6% being young married couples. Members of the “kangaroo tribe” lack a stable, independent socio-economic base. Hence, they cannot afford a house or create a new family, which stagnates economic growth in the long term. 67. 7% of those still living with their parents responded negatively to the idea of finding a house of their own on account of economic reasons. In addition, house poverty among young adults is one of the most crucial phenomena that can explain the low marriage rates and declining birth rates in Korea. Expensive housing in the city and the heavy loans necessary to afford them entail excess financial burdens to pay off the debt, which causes young adults to stray from marriage and childbirth. Research conducted in April this year by the Presidential Committee on Ageing Society and Population Policy revealed that just 61% of 2,011 people aged 25-49 plan to get married in the future. Meanwhile, those who were negative about marriage suggested that they would be open to reconsideration if housing and living conditions improved. These opinions prove that Korean society urgently needs more institutional development to satisfy housing demands, alongside ways to handle low marriage rates and the demographic crisis simultaneously. Yet, clearly, not every Korean is homeless or out on the streets. How do they manage to secure their living space? A keyword for Korea’s new housing trend is sharing. Co-living, which is inspired by a similar trend in European countries, is causing a transition in Korea’s housing market. Departing from the extended family culture of the past, Korea has now moved on to a more compact and atomized type of household unit while retaining privacy and independence. The imbalance in housing demand and supply in urban areas alongside the demographic cliff crisis are the central factors behind this cultural shift. Launched in Hongdae in 2023, NOUDIT is a new branded housing model that represents a more flexible flow of thinking that housing is something to consume rather than to own. It reflects people’s changing values and lifestyles as the working space, living room, and entertainment are all combined into one. The brand plans to expand its business across other parts of Seoul to introduce this new narrative way of living. Meanwhile, cities are also providing public housing for young adults along with government subsidies according to each income level. The Seoul Metropolitan Government has presented an upcoming 2024 model for the increasing number of single-person households, aiming towards a sustainable co-existing environment. Public housing projects like this provide a living space with facilities such as a kitchen, laundry room, gym, and leisure spaces that are open to share with other residents. With this model, citizens can afford a unit with only 50-70% of the current average monthly rent of studio units in the city. The government plans to supply them for up to 6 years for people aged 19-34, and 10 years for the middle-aged and seniors. Introduced in February 2024, Seoul’s goal through this policy is to integrate a total of around 2,500 households into this project by the end of the year. This newly adopted model is particularly enticing for young adults, as it provides the many luxuries of living in the city such as proximity to train stations at a much cheaper price, whilst simultaneously allowing the much-needed privacy of an independent unit. As in the cases above, Seoul has been implementing various kinds of public housing for the past few years, but the question still lies in the effectiveness of its results for young adults in reality. Even setting aside the high application rates and competition, many are actually giving up the chance even if they do get it because they cannot pay the deposit required to move in. Although rental fees may be cheaper, public houses demand higher deposits than the average studio unit, which means that they do not solve the financial issues one has to face. Many have also pointed out that some problems come from the system itself. Young adults who have experiences residing in public housing express dissatisfaction with facility management and faulty constructions conducted by private companies. The government virtually acts as a supplier while private companies are in charge of the real management. As such, despite expectations, there appears to be no real benefit to these public housing projects for young adults. The idea of “sharing” does take off some of the financial burden without having to own a house in the first place. However, these dwellings are ultimately temporary ways to support people until they are fully capable of being financially independent. The housing crisis causes a considerable number of young adults to feel alienated from society. Being able to afford a space to live is significant to young adults because it is an indicator of the financial capability one has in society and is the first step one takes in being independent. Accordingly, young adults call for a more stable and promising future, which should be proposed as the government’s main objective. Rather than just focusing on increasing public housing, there needs to be a systematic approach that can help young adults ultimately become financially independent. Moreover, the quality of public housing can be improved by the government’s tight cooperation with private companies to refine inconveniences for further development. Some of the government’s housing policies presented at the beginning of the year include allowing reconstruction in parts of Seoul and tax benefits when buying a house, which is expected to boost the supply. These implementations would also work to remedy other social concerns such as unemployment and low marriage rates. Despite the perks of metropolitan areas, where high quality of life and infrastructure is more easily accessible, the problem of low housing supply continues to plague them and their residents. Getting married, having a child, and stabilizing their lives have become a sort of luxury in these dire times of the housing crisis, especially when compared to the past. Yet, young adults should not be deprived of their freedom due to this issue and its social and financial constraints. Hence, building an active support system in our society is essential for young adults―the successors of Korea’s economy—as they navigate this unstable stage of life.

South Korea’s rapid modernization and progressive transition into a globalized country has led to a greater inflow of immigrant groups in the past few decades. Among these immigrant communities residing in Korea, there is a community that is worth attention as they have been residing in this nation for more than a century and comprise an important part of Korea’s modern history. However, their existence and story are gradually receding from people’s memories under the inevitable torrent of time. Today, we unveil the story of the Overseas Chinese. When it comes to the Chinese community in South Korea, popular menu items like jjajangmyeon , tangsuyuk, and jjamppong, commonly seen in local Korean-Chinese restaurants, will first come to mind. Today, these long-time favorite dishes are undoubtedly a part of Korean culture. The early Chinese communities who brought in these dishes are known as the Old Overseas Chinese (OOC). This community differs from the new Chinese communities that emerged after the opening of the Chinese mainland under Communist rule a few decades ago. Most of us are familiar with the new wave of Chinese food such as malatang, tanghulu, and the lamb skewer. This group of new Chinese immigrants where Korean-Chinese are the majority is then called the New Overseas Chinese (NOC). Despite the intrinsic differences in their backgrounds and national identities, many remain unaware of their distinctions. According to Chang, secretary of the Seoul Chinese Residents Association, one of the largest OOC associations in Korea, many young Koreans now do not recognize the difference between the OOC and the NOC; instead, they are both treated universally as just Chinese, despite their distinct origins. The OCC community moved to the Korean peninsula during the late 19th century and around the mid-20th century due to the political turmoil and wars that engulfed China. Many of the Chinese were forced to leave their homelands, especially in response to the Chinese Civil War right after the end of the Second World War. Although the OOC had moved to the Korean peninsula from China for a more peaceful life, they found themselves suffering from several events that challenged their survival. For instance, in 1931, the Wanpaoshan Incident, a minor dispute between Korean and Chinese farmers during the Japanese colonization, was falsely reported to the public, stimulating anti-Chinese riots that injured and killed many of the OOC. Additionally, the implementation of the Foreigners’ Land Act in 1961 which significantly affected the OOC’s possession of lands in Korea, caused many to convert their realty business to Chinese cuisine restaurants. Moreover, the OOC have been facing plights concerning their national identity. This originated from the Chinese Civil War between the Nationalist Party (or officially, the Republic of China or simply the ROC) and the Chinese Communist Party. The former later managed to retain Taiwan and a few islands along the Chinese mainland while the latter established a new regime, the People’s of Republic of China in 1949. This is the major cause of the current split across the Taiwan Strait. As the OOC immigrated to South Korea in the very early days, or during the period of wartime, most of them still retain the passport and national identity of the ROC. It is not difficult to understand the awkward situation of the OOC, especially regarding which nationality of Chinese they are supposed to align themselves with, and this has only deepened after the South Korean government established official diplomatic relations with the PRC in 1992. The recent tension that has been forming between the people of South Korea and the new wave of Chinese from the mainland also intensified the already-complicated status of the OOC. This can be observed from a live YouTube broadcast of a public hearing held in May 2021, regarding the partial amendments of the Nationality Law, where one of the panelists came from the Chinese Residents Association. When the panelist was giving his speech, sinophobic comments like “just go back to China,” and “you must have received much money from China,” or simply comments that condemn the association’s name bombarded the stream. This shows that the public, especially these particular individuals, may be unaware of the difference between the two Chinese communities. This means that regardless of the political alignments of the OOC, they are viewed as a monolith and simply reduced to Chinese foreigners. The challenges do not come merely from their situation in Korea itself, but also from their motherland, the ROC or Taiwan. As the OOC community is mostly based in Korea, they do not have a typical Taiwanese household registration, which means their Taiwanese passport does not hold the same visa benefits as those residing in Taiwan. According to the law back in Taiwan, those who hold this kind of passport are required to apply for an entry permit in advance to enter Taiwan. In contrast, Korean citizens can visit Taiwan without a visa. This has caused a lot of inconvenience for the OOC community when it comes to the visa benefits of the Taiwanese passport and disadvantages for those who need to travel overseas, especially for work. Consequently, OOC job prospects in Korea are negatively affected. These collective issues eventually led to the further shrinkage of the community. Based on the information shared by Chang, there are only around 14,000 OOC currently residing in Korea with the ROC nationality. The ramifications of this change are that it has become more difficult to maintain OOC primary and secondary schools as the enrollment of students has decreased significantly. Chang said that this is an inevitable trend that the community cannot avoid. When asked about the current situation of the OOC, especially the younger generations, he also remarked that the naturalization process for OOC in Korea is becoming easier and that many of the youngsters have decided to pick up Korean citizenship rather than that of the ROC. At the same time, the social status of the younger generation OOC is improving compared to the previous generations, as those who choose to get naturalized have no issues with assimilating into the local Korean society. The hardships encountered by the OOC community can potentially be considered as a remnant of the past, as the younger generation is generally living in a much-improved environment. Nevertheless, understanding the story of the OOC is still valuable, as remembering and acknowledging past experiences and struggles is the basis for respecting the rights of smaller immigrant communities. Instead of only viewing the OOC as foreigners, it might be better to acknowledge their century-long contribution to Korean society. Perhaps, the next time you savor a bowl of jjajangmyeon, take a moment to slow down and consider that it is not merely a simple bowl of noodles. Instead, it represents the unique legacy of the OOC in Korea, highlighting how well they have integrated into the culture and community over time.