|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Canuckophile
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 1:24 pm Post subject: TSUNAMI |
 |
|
I'm in US now, waiting to go to Korea, but horrified at what I see of the news on the tragic tsunami in SE Asia. Is Korea sending any assistance? (Cheapskate US is sending $15 mil - undoubtedly less than what is being spent on Shrub's re-coronation.)
Did anyone hear of any English teachers caught in the tsunami? (I have friends who were in Phuket when it struck - a married couple who were in separate locations - managed to survive and locate each other. Darn lucky.)
CANUCKOPHILE |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This may answer your question:
(from today's Chosun Ilbo editorial)
Our government earned itself international kudos by deciding yesterday to send US$600,000 (W628.6 million) in relief funds and assistance. It mustn��t think, however, that this is all it needs to do. As order is restored to the disaster sites and the true extent of the damage comes to light, it will be necessary to proffer additional assistance.
In 1999, when massive earthquakes struck Turkey and Taiwan, Korea sent $100,000 in financial assistance, earning criticism from both home and abroad for being ungenerous.
Internationally, we are still viewed as penny-pinchers in terms of providing disaster aid. Last year, Korea��s official development assistance (ODA) totaled $300 million. Even if supporters claim this should not be compared to the $15.8 billion granted by the United States or Japan's $8.9 billion, it didn't even amount to one tenth the amount sent by the Netherlands ($4 billion), a nation with a similarly sized economy to ours.
We cannot hope to be accepted as a good neighbor by the international community, nor raise Korea��s prestige on the world stage, if we continue to behave in this way.
Southeast Asia is our fourth largest export market, the third largest recipient of overseas investment, and the second largest overseas construction market. We have run annual multi-billion dollar trade surpluses with the region for the last 14 consecutive years.
***
Then from the Joongang Ilbo:
South Korea pledged yesterday to increase financial aid, from $600,000 to $2 million. The Korean National Red Cross is also expected to send blankets and other relief material worth 100 million won ($95,238) by air tomorrow. In addition, Seoul National University Hospital is sending a team of 19 medical personnel to the affected area today. Civic organizations such as Good Neighbors are also chipping in.
Meanwhile, the South Korean Foreign Ministry confirmed more South Korean deaths, bringing the toll so far to three. Lim Wu-jeong, 33, a resident of Malaysia, a 75-year-old woman only identified by her last name Bae and a 20-year-old woman with the surname Lim have been confirmed dead. A ministry official said that 17 people have been confirmed injured, as consular officials on the ground checked hospitals in the affected areas.
The number of Koreans missing has risen to 12. A government official said that the death toll could rise in the coming days as many of the missing are believed dead. Included among the missing are seven tourists, part of a larger group of South Koreans who visited the Thai resort island of Phi Phi, and four tourists staying in a hotel at Khao Lak, a resort area in Thailand.
A Foreign Ministry official said that the ministry and the South Korean Embassy in Thailand are trying to confirm the whereabouts of 590 people whose relatives have requested information about them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 4:27 pm Post subject: Re: TSUNAMI |
|
|
| Canuckophile wrote: |
| I'm in US now, waiting to go to Korea, but horrified at what I see of the news on the tragic tsunami in SE Asia. Is Korea sending any assistance? (Cheapskate US is sending $15 mil - undoubtedly less than what is being spent on Shrub's re-coronation.) |
Those sending money:
United States is at 45 million.
Canada at 3.2 million.
Combination of all EU States is at 50 million. Germany at 4.1 million, etc.
China 2.6 million
Japan 40 million
Quatar 10 million
Saudia Arabia sending 10 million
3 Gulf States contributing 22 million
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041229/wl_sthasia_afp/asiaquakeaid&e=4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peppermint
Joined: 13 May 2003
Location: traversing the minefields of caddishness.
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just got this info from the local red cross:
If you want to donate, you can wire money to:
The Union Bank of Ceylon
( Sri Lanka)
C/o the Rotoract Club
M.S. Abuthahir
Acct # 108 22 00013 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
waterbaby
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Location: Baking Gord a Cheescake pie
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Australia has just upped it's contribution to $35 million. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bosintang
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Location: In the pot with the rest of the mutts
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:00 am Post subject: Re: TSUNAMI |
|
|
| Tiger Beer wrote: |
| Canuckophile wrote: |
| I'm in US now, waiting to go to Korea, but horrified at what I see of the news on the tragic tsunami in SE Asia. Is Korea sending any assistance? (Cheapskate US is sending $15 mil - undoubtedly less than what is being spent on Shrub's re-coronation.) |
Those sending money:
United States is at 45 million.
Canada at 3.2 million.
Combination of all EU States is at 50 million. Germany at 4.1 million, etc.
China 2.6 million
Japan 40 million
Quatar 10 million
Saudia Arabia sending 10 million
3 Gulf States contributing 22 million
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041229/wl_sthasia_afp/asiaquakeaid&e=4 |
These countries, particularly the US, Canada, and the EU should be ashamed of this. It's bloody ridiculous that Canada is only
at $4million (I think they upped it to that, big deal). We should be adding about three zeros to that number! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TECO
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Canada at $3.4 Million
Australia at $35 Million
U.S.?
Something strange there.
Both countries are heavily connected with Asia.
Interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Henry
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
No doubt the US will end up giving way more than the initial 35 mil. response. I think as specific needs arise we will be there to fund projects.
It seems that what is needed more than money now is manpower. Throwing a blank check at something doesn't always make the problem go away.
Oh, and the US is giving the most of any single country (4 mil from Canada?), and WE'RE disgracefuly cheap and ungenerous? Well, any reason to point the finger at the devil I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blind Willie
Joined: 05 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I like how people demand to see a price tag on helping. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bosintang
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Location: In the pot with the rest of the mutts
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Henry wrote: |
No doubt the US will end up giving way more than the initial 35 mil. response. I think as specific needs arise we will be there to fund projects.
It seems that what is needed more than money now is manpower.
|
If there's one thing South Asia has enough of, it's manpower.
| Quote: |
Throwing a blank check at something doesn't always make the problem go away.
|
I think they should at least allocate the funds now, but I hope you're right, that they do increase contributions as aid projects come in.
| Quote: |
Oh, and the US is giving the most of any single country (4 mil from Canada?), and WE'RE disgracefuly cheap and ungenerous? Well, any reason to point the finger at the devil I guess. |
Well the US is about 10 times the population of Canada, but I digress, I think Canada's contribution so far is shameful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bosintang
Joined: 01 Dec 2003
Location: In the pot with the rest of the mutts
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041229/COGEE29/TPColumnists/
| Quote: |
Thirsting for more aid
The Asian tsunamis have swept away the rich countries' excuses for ignoring the world's neediest
By MARCUS GEE
Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - Page A19
Sometimes speaking sense can get you in a lot of trouble. Jan Egeland found that out this week when he spoke about the Asian tsunami disaster. Mr. Egeland, who is emergency relief co-ordinator for the United Nations, was urging rich countries to contribute as much as they can to the relief effort. To drive home the point, he noted that they have not been very generous in recent years, holding the line on foreign aid even as their economies were growing. "It is beyond me why they are so stingy," he said. "Really, Christmas time should remind many Western countries, at least, how rich they have become."
It didn't take long for the fur to start flying. Though Mr. Egeland didn't single out any rich country in his remarks, the richest of the rich took offence. "The United States is not stingy," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell found it necessary to insist on CNN. In fact, he said, it is "the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world." Quite so. It gives almost twice as much as the second biggest foreign aid donor, Japan, and that doesn't include U.S. reconstruction aid for Iraq and Afghanistan. But Mr. Powell was missing the point.
Mr. Egeland wasn't saying that the United States in particular is stingy. He was saying that rich countries in general are -- including the United States. On that point, he was absolutely right, and the disaster in Asia brings it home.
It has been 34 years since the United Nations urged its wealthiest members to devote the equivalent of 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product to foreign aid every year. Except for a small handful of generous countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), none has come close. In fact, many have gone backward. Canada, for one, spends 0.28 per cent of GDP, way down from its peak of 0.53 per cent in 1975-76. As Mr. Egeland had the temerity to note, "There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy."
That is what makes the proportionate drop in aid so deplorable. It has happened against a background of ever-increasing wealth in the developed world. Overall, the world's rich donor countries are two and a half times more wealthy than they were in 1960. Yet their average aid donation per capita has barely budged, rising from $61 to $67 in inflation-adjusted terms.
Of course, that doesn't make the rich countries responsible for what has happened in Asia -- a bolt from the blue that would have devastated any populated region it hit. But it puts a greater onus on the rich world to respond generously, not just to the immediate crisis but to long-term needs. Despite the enormous progress recorded over the past few decades -- a doubling of average income in developing nations since 1975; a rise in global adult literacy from 47 per cent in 1970 to 73 per cent today -- 10 million children still die each year from completely preventable causes. A billion people lack clean and accessible drinking water, and two billion cook their food on open indoor fires.
The existence of such want in the midst of plenty is the scandal of the 21st century. The Asian disaster is a perfect chance to make things right by launching a global war on poverty.
As it happens, the coming year will see a host of efforts to do just that. In July, Britain will play host to a Group of 8 summit that is supposed to focus on tackling global poverty, with special attention to the poorest continent, Africa. In September, the UN General Assembly will meet to review progress on its Millennium Development Goals, an attempt to cut world poverty in half by 2015. Meantime, a series of high-level reports will lay out how to do it.
The danger, of course, is that all of this will produce little but hot air. Past summits devoted to defeating poverty have often ended with ringing declarations and ambitious goals that are never met. At the 1993 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, to cite just one example, donors promised to increase aid by 4 per cent. Over the next four years, it actually fell by 24 per cent in real terms as Western governments such as Canada's fought their budget deficits.
This time around, there is a chance to do better. The events of 9/11 and since have reminded rich countries of the frustrations that can grow in a world of great inequality. With the global economy ticking along, several big countries have increased their aid substantially -- in the case of the United States by 16. 9 per cent, and Britain by 11.9 per cent. A number of world leaders -- Britain's Tony Blair, France's Jacques Chirac, our own Paul Martin -- are eager to make their mark by leading an assault on world poverty.
If the rich countries want to prove Jan Egeland wrong and show they are not stingy after all, they must take the Asian disaster as an opportunity to fulfill their pledges to their poorer cousins. And 2005 is the year to do it.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blind Willie
Joined: 05 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MARCUS GEE wrote: |
| The danger, of course, is that all of this will produce little but hot air. |
It's not much of a danger when you know it's going to happen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think whats happening also now.. is people fighting for the construction contracts! SHAME REALLY..
way to go Australia 35 million!!!
korea not even a million!!
JAPAN 40 million!! not bad! but when a country like OZ with 18 million people.. and much LOWER GDP than korean and japan set the bar at 35.
it really does show which countries really do care!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Henry
Joined: 24 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that what is needed more than money now is manpower.
[/quote]
If there's one thing South Asia has enough of, it's manpower.
Well, all I keep hearing about is the risk of disease because there aren't enough people left to bury the bodies fast enough, and pump out all of the remaining water.
[Probably the most morose thing I've ever written]
And don't worry about allocating funds. That's just an accounting trick. The US writes checks for as much as it wants regardless of "allocations" (SEE: Deficit, Falling Value of Dollar). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
turtlepi1
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's stupid!!!
I'll give $30 million...no wait $50 million....no wait $100,000,000.
No amount of money will bring the people back. It is a show that your country is compassionate. throwing money at the problem will make a bunch of people rich (who already have money), waste a lot of resources,etc.
Sure there is money that is needed right away. The world will come through with that money but it is long-term money planning and support that is needed...promising that money up-front is a popularity contest...
(I guess if that popularity contest gets the people the money they need that is good, but it is a wasteful way to do it..) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
