the reporter was clearly in the wrong for swearing. but i applaud him for asking the questions. perhaps, not the right time, place and manner. but i wish more foreign correspondents would put pressure on the korean government regarding this issue. and i hate korean media. that is all.

I also like seoulmilk’s gravatar.

Do you mean seoulmilk’s comment #196? If so, I also obviously agree on the need to pay attention to the “time, place, and manner” when speaking.

I am re-reading Cicero’s De Officiis, and this passage stands out:

“Orderliness must, then, be imposed upon our actions in such a way that all the parts of our life, as of a speech that has constancy, are fitted to one another and in agreement. For it is dishonourable and a great failing to introduce into a serious matter something worthy of a dinner party, or some frivolous conversation. Pericles and the poet Sophocles were colleagues as praetor and had met about some shared duty. By chance, a beautiful boy went past and Sophocles said, ‘Pericles, what a lovely boy!’ His answer was a good one: ‘It is seemly for a praetor, Sophocles, to abstain not only from touching, but even from looking.’ But if Sophocles had said the same thing at an athletes’ trial, it would not have been just to criticize him; so great is the significance of place and time. Similarly, if someone who was about to conduct a lawsuit were to practise to himself while on a journey or a walk, or were to reflect deeply on some other matter, he would not be criticized. If, however, he were to do the same at a dinner party, his lack of awareness of the occasion would make him appear uncivilized.”

As for the issue of room salons, my views on it–as is the case of many things involving the patria–are complex, and I do not think it would be politic or seemly to elaborate them in their entirety for now.

At any rate, it seems to have been caught up by the moderation filter (probably because of a particular noun I used in the last sentence).

1. I do not see a compelling reason to rope Mr. Kirk and Ramstad together and then present a defense of both. It almost seems like an attempt to exonerate by association of sorts, given that Mr. Kirk’s name rightfully commands a lot of respect among long-time Korea watchers.

Nonetheless, Mr. Kirk did not first broach the indelicate topic, nor did he respond with a profanity-laced temper tantrum when privately reprimanded. Nor is he, to my knowledge, a recidivist when it comes to boorish behavior toward officials of his host country. Finally, and understandably, the controversy has revolved around the (in)appropriateness of Ramstad’s questions and his subsequent (and now it turns out preceding), rude behavior.

So let’s leave Mr. Kirk out of this.

2. While the room salon culture is indeed pervasive in South Korea, I maintain that Ramstad’s question was out of place en toto, even abstracting the issue of sensitivity to local cultural norms (the knowledge in which Ramstad seems woefully deficient).

To begin with, and as others have pointed out, the Finance Minister was not exactly the right person to ask what is primarily a sociological question.

Second, as a matter of commonsense, I fail to see how the prevalence of the room salon culture can be the primary cause of South Korean women’s reluctance to enter the workforce. Aside from my methodological allergy toward mono-causal explanations: Is it not more commonsensical to assume that that primary cause could be something much more mundane? Start with the tremendous wage gap based on the gender. People work, among other things, to make money, do they not? Or if you want a more abstract or airy explanation: What about the all-encompassing pressures of a relentless, Confucian socialization process that indoctrinates women into believing their place is nowhere else but home, sweet home? Most young Korean women I know quit working when they got married simply because that’s how things have been done since time immemorial, and that’s how their expectations were shaped from their earliest days. Yet, Ramstad picks, pardon the pun, the most sexy mono-causal explanation designed to do nothing but offend (and perhaps sell papers: “Titty bar corporate culture discourages Korean women from leaving the kitchen”!).

Third, that Ramstad’s primary intent was to rile up the good Minister seems almost demonstrated by his gratuitous ad hominem question that directly targeted the Ministry’s own practices in regard to room salon.

Again, I ask: Why was all this necessary?

3. Finally, Mr. Stanton side-steps Ramstad’s most egregious transgressions by professing ignorance: i.e., Ramstad’s history of profanity hurling episodes toward the Ministry officials. But the profession of ignorance in this context is a weak defense, because Ramstad himself explicitly admitted it happened. So I am afraid that we must take a stand regarding whether it is proper for a foreign correspondent to swear at public officials when he does not get his way–regardless of the provocation.

Now it appears from Ramstad rather nonchalant “apologia” of sorts at Mr. Koehler’s Blog that he considers the said behavior rather everyday when it comes to interaction between reporters and public officials. In fact, he appears miffed that the Ministry belated publicized his past spats with it. He’s a “big boy,” and it almost seems like he’s implying that the insulted person should have f-bombed him back and then called it even.

I do not think Ramstad actually believes all this (would he have acted the same way if he were a correspondent in Washington or London?).

Instead, the pattern seems to indicate we have a journalistic variant of the “Ugly American” syndrome–rather characteristic of how some (I deleted the original adjective “many”) American correspondents in East Asia behave: With insufferable hubris and utter obliviousness to the local context.

And if Ramstad does actually think what he did represents the proverbial par for the course for his job, I wonder whether he possesses the requisite contextual cultural discernment for the job. There is a fundamental difference between asking tough, probing questions at opportune moments and being an ass always.

First, everybody should be grateful for this interlude. The speech was so boring I had to keep from nodding off, and the Q&A was worse. Then Evan asked his question, and the minister gave quite a coherent and comprehensible reply. At which point, having shaken myself awake, I asked simply whether the biz people who spend most of the dough on the room salons were able to write off the expenses. The minister calmly explained there was a limit to how much they could write off. Fair enough. I did not rpt NOT “insist,” as the Korea Times reported, “the government should bar companies from deducting such expenses from their taxable income.” To be truthful, I don’t think the government SHOULD bar all such expenses. Hell, a lot of business gets done that way. I was just wondering what was the rule. The question was asked more out of idle curiosity than anything else. (I didn’t write a story on the subject and don’t plan to.)

Trust this response will greatly enlighten the multitudes before they turn to something a lot more interesting.
Don

By the way, Joshua, did you see this story? Do you have anything that points to the difficulties of North Koreans in Russia trying to get to ROK, US, or Japanese consulates?

Saw Sonagi is a commentator there as well. Gotta say if you don’t think China has a more visible sex industry than Korea I’m not sure where you were living here. It’s pretty hard to get a normal massage here without the offer or special services and there are dozens and dozens of massage places within about a 30 minute walk from any major place I can think of in my city. As someone said, if the services aren’t for you, they may be less visible.