International Law

Citizens Reject Charity for Namdaemun Restoration, Demand Government Money

Sometimes I really have to wonder about the Korean public’s understanding of how exactly government works. Check out this flap reported in the JoongAng Daily concerning who’s going to pay for the loss of National Treasure No. 1, the Sungnyemun (Namdaemun) gate—which was torched over the weekend by a disgruntled citizen:

After an alleged arsonist destroyed Namdaemun, the 610-year-old southern gate of Seoul on Sunday night, President-elect Lee Myung-bak suggested the next day that the gate?s restoration be funded by citizens? donations.

Okay, so far, so good. Let the people participate in the restoration of the nation’s lost patrimony. Let the corporations and fat cats fall over themselves to show how much they love the nation.

But after the public ire that followed the president-elect?s announcement, his transition team said yesterday there must have been a serious misunderstanding.

?His [Lee Myung-bak?s] intentions were not delivered well. What he meant was he?d let people freely participate in devoted action to restore Sungnyemun,? said Lee Kyung-sook, the transition team chairwoman, using the formal name of the gate. ?He had no intention of starting any mandatory fund-raising of any sort.? Lee made her comments during the team?s daily morning meeting yesterday.

Okay, so the fundraising won’t be mandatory. I don’t know how charity could be mandatory anyway… Except if it were a tax. Anyway, charitable donations would probably come from corporations. Last I heard, Samsung may have some loose money laying around.

President-elect Lee said earlier that he wanted to start a fund-raising campaign to collect the 20 billion won ($21.1 million) needed to restore Namdaemun when he takes office later this month. Critics immediately asked why they should open up their pockets to pay for the government?s failure to prevent the ruin of the gate....

The transition team?s initial idea to start a national fund-raising campaign will most likely be scrapped. Chairwoman Lee retracted the transition team?s initial announcement and said the restoration plan will be dealt with by the government?s budget.

Um, so let me get this straight: The people don’t want to be strongarmed into donating money, because they think it’s the government’s responsibility to pay for the restoration. So the government shouldn’t seek our money, it should use its own money. Is that right? Where do we suppose the government gets that money?

In respect of the donation plan, I think it’s a good one. Yesterday, our partners decided to contribute W100 million—about W5 million per partner of our firm—to the fund-raising campaign. Word of our management’s decision spread through the office like wildfire, and the associates were positively chipper about the news. They knew that we were able to earn that money through their efforts for the firm’s clients—in other words, their work was directly contributing to the restoration. Why deny other folks (schoolchildren contributing their piggy banks, for example) the same good feeling?

Plus, if you ask me that restoration isn’t going to cost W20 billion. It will be several times that, and the money will be necessary. Plus if there’s any left over, I don’t think anyone who contributed would begrudge the allocation to paying for security systems and firefighting for other national cultural artifacts.

But public outcry rejecting charity in favor of taxes, that’s a new one.

Full post as published by Korea Law Blog on February 14, 2008 (boomark / email).