Korean Job Discussion Forums

[sojusucks]

[Seoulio]

[VFRinterceptor]

There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[Old Gil]

[Seoulio]

[broken76]

The tutoring laws are in place to help balance the social economics of the country and not to discriminate against foreigners. The article clearly states that Koreans were caught breaking the law.
Now there may be some confusion on what laws are in question. The first one is on teaching privates which is illegal unless the teacher is registered at the local ministry of education. The ministry of education will grant licenses to foreigners and to Koreans. The main reason why people don't get the license and work legally is because it limits the rates that can be charged to students.

The main reason why this law is in place is so that the rich upper classes don't gain an unfair advantage when it comes to education and advancement in society. There was a recent article in the news that stated that (translation provided by Koreabeat http://bit.ly/bBOM3K) 41% of the students at SNU are from the richest neighborhoods in Seoul. This is mainly because these students had the money to get an advantage when it comes to education. For those that have been in Korea for awhile you know that the majority of students gain their education from hagwons and tutors and not from public school. The limiting of rates for tutors (and also hagwons) was created to help allow students from lower income families to also have access to additional education resources.

Another reason for wanting licensing for tutors is to force them to report their earnings. Again this applies to Koreans and also to foreigners. Trust me there are way more Koreans illegally tutoring than foreigners and the amount of unreported earnings I'm assuming is pretty high. The government felt that it should be taxed and I agree with them.

The second law in question is about foreign teachers working while under an E2 Visa. Again this applies to all foreign workers in Korea whether they are a teacher, factory worker or business professional. If you are sponsored by a business then you are in this country to work for them. The main reason for this law is to protect the jobs of Koreans. This is pretty much the law for the majority of work Visas anywhere in the world.

Now these laws affect foreigners in Korea but they also affect Koreans as well and to think that these laws are targeting only foreigners is pretty silly. Yes, I agree Koreans are still fairly xenophobic but considering the history of Korea it's not too surprising and I'm actually pleasantly surprised at how far they've gotten in such a short time. There are still individuals that are very closed minded in Korea but they they exist everywhere in the world. Last time I checked the KKK still existed in the US and there have also been big pushes against illegal immigration.
Also I agree that too much consideration is given to the chaebols in Korea but one needs to realize that these are the people that really helped Korea drag it's way up from being a third world country.

[Seoulio]

[Old Gil]

[broken76]

Gil yes stupid and outdated laws do exist but breaking them really isn't the best way to solve the issue. Your argument simply seems to state that if we don't agree with a law then we have the right to break it. Does that mean that first degree murderers are simply exercising their right to disagree with a law? You'll most likely think that I'm using an extreme case but who has the right to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?
While in Korea or any other foreign country one is a guest and should respect the laws. I actually feel that those laws in a foreign country should be respected more in a foreign country than your own. Simply like if I were a guest in someone else's house I would have more respect for the rules than if I were in my own.
If one feels strongly about it then they should make an effort to get the laws changed.
Personally I don't care if you or anyone else teachers private lessons here in Korea. It does affect me but not in a strong enough way that I care much about it. If a teacher gets caught and deported that's fine with me too. They knew the rules and decided to break them and got kicked out of the house.

[Seoulio]

[Agent 13]

PatrickGHBusan wrote:

[Seoulio]

Martin Luther King was a CITIZEN of America and was being denied rights, nor was he attempting to circumvent the laws for monetary gain ( perhaps monetary freedom and prosperity, but not for gain)

He was also fighting an unjust law that limited his very rights and freedoms.

While I agree with some of what you have written, and your seniment ( I do think that Patrick does way over simplify and generalise) I do not agree with the example you have used.

I understand you used it to address a point, but with so many differences in the "unjust laws" being faught I do not think your example is that great.

[TheUrbanMyth]

[Agent 13]

Urban Myth,

With respect, I suggest you read the paragraph after the one you lifted and isolated if you would like to see the example I provide as an analogy. In the context of my post, I clearly indicated that I was about to pose an analogy (a comparison between two things that are alike in some way), and then, in the ensuing paragraph, I did so. That is where the analogy is illustrated, indeed quite clearly.

I don't have any problem with your highlighting a part of my post, Urban Myth. The point I was making is that, based on the logical premise articulated by the other poster (he labels people as "hypocrites" while assailing their line of reasoning as lacking in credibility simply because they criticize laws they may or may not choose to disregard), by extension he is, therefore, calling Martin Luther King a hypocrite (i.e., the analagous situation is that Martin Luther King broke a law and criticized the same law that he had broken - a fact). Hence, the analogy is used to illustrate the point.

I also attempted to indicate quite clearly that I was in no way suggesting that from a civil rights or segregation perspective, the situation of English teachers in Korea is analagous to what African-American people faced in the Jim Crow South. I guess you didn't get that part, though, because I doubt you would deliberately try to distort my point on purpose. Anyway, you know what would have happened if I had not taken pains to point out that I do not think English teachers in Korea are suffering from severe, institutionalized discrimination and being beaten by the police, etc. If I hadn't gone out of my way to point that out, someone certainly would have deliberately launched into a deflective effort to cloud my main point, which is this:

MLK broke the law and criticized it. Some people do the same thing in other situations (i.e., they break a particular law and criticize it). Another poster said anyone who breaks a law and criticizes it is a "hypocrite" and has no credibility. Ergo, since MLK did exactly what that poster said (again, that's the analogy), he is saying that about MLK. That's what's known as elementary logic. I am not debating whether breaking a particular law is right or wrong in and of itself. (Again, if I don't go to the trouble of pointing that out, the deflection and distortion campaign will get into full swing - but hell, it probably will anyway).

I'm not going to insult you, and I can assure you I have no need for you to direct me to a dictionary. I sincerely thank you for responding anyway - I take it as an opportunity to clear things up a bit.

Best regards,

Agent 13

[broken76]

I'm sure that MLK and Ghandhi would be proud to know that people are using their ideas of civil disobedience to fight a law that is trying to get rid of class distinction so a select few people can make more money.
Well overall the entire idea is moot because there is no law against teaching private lessons. There are laws that regulate it just like there are laws regulating other industries. Would people think that being a doctor without a license is okay since getting a license would mean the doctor would have to regulate how much they are allowed to charge for services? Or how about if people suddenly felt that driving without a license was OK and in order to protest 10 year old kids all decided to start driving.