Comments on: Support the Norks; fail the bar?

By: Brendon Carr

Brendon Carr — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:30:43 +0000

It’s very hard to flunk out of the “good” US law schools too. I know; I went to one of the better law schools — the University of Washington — and didn’t study all that much, but still my grades remained (slightly above) average. (But I may have come close to getting kicked out for thought crime when the Grim & Humorless Women’s Brigade got ahold of me.)

By: lirelou

lirelou — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:37:35 +0000

Paul H. Reference Syngman Rhee and: ” Not …going to the front personally and trying to inspire (his) forces in the defense.” That was not the standard of the time. I don’t think you will find any WWII leaders who did so either. In 1950-53 Korea there appears to have been a clear understanding of political leadership duties versus military leadership duties. To take the anti-communist North Korean guerrillas evacuated from Hwanghae province as an example, they had political leaders who stayed back on the islands now under U.N. control, who were not expected to accompany operations on the mainland, and “gun” leaders who were subordinate to them and did accompany raids and reconnaissance missions into North Korea. My article in Nov 1984’s Army magazine was based upon a more comprehensive study by a LTC Daly, who spent some time with the guerrillas in 1951-52, and he specifically commented on that division of responsibilities. Perhaps it came from the Confucian tradition, but my impression is that the line between civil and military leadership is generally well defined even in Western societies. George W’s touchdown in Baghdad, with the security forces and planning effort required, cannot be co-related to S.R.’s situation, given the paucity of resources available to the president of the ROK at that period.

By: Zonath

Zonath — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:32:01 +0000

Wow. I’m personally just surprised that there’s actually a standard in place here (even if it is a bit misguided.) After all, isn’t this the same country where even being accepted into a university or graduate program creates enough of an entitlement that you literally can’t fail to graduate? What’s next? Are we going to find out that there’s some sort of standard for doctors, too?

By: Paul H.

Paul H. — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:55:08 +0000

As much time as I’ve spent here lately, you’d think after a while I’d cease to be astonished. Does the concept of loyalty to a “Republic of Korea” (embodied in an oath, in the same way that a US lawyer is expected to take an oath after passing the bar) really mean anything to South Korean “elites”? Did it ever?

Maybe all the military coups over the years have made the current government come to be considered as a sort of vaguely temporary “government of convenience” for politically astute and aware South Koreans(?) Furthermore, perhaps this has something to do with how Syngman Rhee is currently regarded by them, in terms of the “founding” of the country (I gather he’s not held in quite the same reverence as, say, George Washington was in the US 45 years after his respective death).

For example, I gather that SR used a train (the same one mentioned in the cultural properties post above?) to evacuate himself and the ROK gold reserve out of Seoul, very early on after the North Korean attack on 25 June 1950. Not quite the same thing as going to the front personally and trying to inspire your forces in the defense.

More currently, I’m thinking particularly of the ROK/”Korean” baseball team, playing in the US recently in the world championships (a year or two ago, can’t remember offhand exactly when it was now but it was covered extensively here on this blog)

Because of that coverage, I took the time to watch at least one of the games in which the Korean team played (it was indeed good baseball). One of the US TV announcers noted, rather casually in passing, that the Korean lanaguage uniform logos said “Korea” (not Republic of Korea). He went on to mention that this had been done at the players’ insistence.

So — maybe all controversy/”problems” as to prospective ROK lawyers could be “avoided”, if they are merely asked in their interviews as to whether or not “Korea is one”.

Perhaps I am just being tendentious, but to me this seems to go to the heart of the issue as to whether the US forces should stay or not. The essence of the matter is essentially IMO a moral one (not a matter of “realpolitik/balance of power in NE Asia/etc etc”).

I don’t think “anti-communism” is ultimately enough. Just how long can we go on acting as though US forces are expected to fight and possibly die in the defense of a Korean republic if South Korean elites are themselves deeply ambivalent about it?

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:51:59 +0000

So this is how the tacit Korean ability to lie through one’s teeth is institutionalized in their mockery of a legal system?

By: dudeinwales

dudeinwales — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:13:13 +0000

You really do have to wonder who would be enough of an idiot to express support for the Worker’s Party during their exam… Since any real agent for KJI would have the brains to keep their opinions to themselves, anyone else who openly expresses support has to be mentally deficient. I know I wouldn’t want anyone that stupid defending me in court.

By: Sperwer

Sperwer — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:16:06 +0000

Brendon has hit the nail squarely on the head. The problem is not that anyone is substantively anti-American, just that they were too unsubtle about expressing it. As a foreigner, you’d be hard put to find a Korean lawyer who will act assertively as your advocate because the the notion that bar membership makes one an “officer of the court” of sorts here means lawyers are first and foremost servants of Korean interests, narrowly construed - especially if they conflict with those of the client to whom ostensibly one has an overriding duty of loyalty (short of actually breaking the law on his behalf). Such loyalty, along with discretion, integrity and elementary competence (when it comes to modern commercial transactions) are in desperately short supply here among the sharks in the pool.

By: Robert Koehler

Robert Koehler — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:44:24 +0000

Interestingly enough, the bar exam story is the most looked-at over at Naver.com right now. Of the 26 that were given the in-depth interview, seven failed. Interestingly, one of the guys who picked the United States as the “main enemy” saved himself by changing his position in the interview, while they guy who said North Korean nukes don’t pose a threat to South Korea passed since committee members felt that it was important to be inclusive and, ultimately, this was the test to become prosecutors or judges, in which case such a view would become an issue.

Nevertheless, seven was a big number to drop during the interview—over the last decade, only one test taker has ever failed after being referred for an in-depth interview. The fact that seven were dropped—all at once—is really quite unusual.

BTW, 37 percent of those who passed the bar this year were women, the highest ratio even in Korea.

By: rowan

rowan — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:28:57 +0000

robert,
i actually wondered about that because i couldn’t really recall any women in positions higher that tour guides in what i had seen from NK, but it was the only thing i couyld think of to agree with in NK. so i guess if that is gone the whole test thing might not be such a bad idea.

By: SomeguyinKorea

SomeguyinKorea — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:25:15 +0000

…liar,…