Journalist

Abe Kwak
  • Samsung Live: Seoul presses management and union not to give up on talks
    Samsung Live: Seoul presses management and union not to give up on talks SEOUL, May 20 (AJP) -The South Korean government pressured the management and union of Samsung Electronics not to give up talks to avert a general strike starting Thursday that could rattle the core chip sector sustaining Asia’s fourth-largest economy and one of the world’s hottest stock markets against Gulf war shocks. The presidential office Wednesday expressed “deep regret” after three days of government-mediated wage talks collapsed in Sejong City, while the Ministry of Employment and Labor vowed to use “every possible method” to keep both sides engaged ahead of the union’s planned 18-day walkout from May 21 through June 7. The strike would mark the most serious labor disruption in Samsung Electronics’ history and comes at a particularly sensitive moment for the global semiconductor industry as artificial intelligence-driven demand fuels a worldwide race for advanced memory chips. Samsung Electronics, which accounted for 36 percent of the global DRAM market and 22 percent of the high-bandwidth memory market as of the end of 2025, plays a central role in the AI supply chain powering data centers and next-generation computing systems. At the heart of the dispute is the union’s demand that Samsung allocate 15 percent of annual operating profit to bonuses, scrap the current cap equivalent to 50 percent of annual salary and institutionalize the revised compensation structure as a permanent rule. Samsung rejected the demands, arguing that the proposal would undermine performance-based pay by forcing the company to compensate even loss-making divisions at levels it described as “socially difficult to justify.” “There should be no strike under any circumstances,” Samsung said in a statement, while adding that it remained open to further dialogue to avoid production disruptions. Union leaders accused management of dragging out decisions until the mediation deadline expired despite meaningful progress during the talks. “The union participated sincerely throughout the three days of talks and did its best to find common ground,” said Choi Seung-ho, head of the Samsung Electronics chapter of the National Samsung Group Union. “We accepted the mediation proposal presented by the National Labor Relations Commission, but management failed to make a decision in time.” The labor ministry declined to comment on whether it could invoke emergency arbitration powers, a rarely used mechanism that allows the government to suspend strikes for up to 30 days in industries deemed critical to the national economy. Industry estimates cited by government officials suggest that an 18-day strike could inflict direct and indirect economic losses of up to 100 trillion won ($72 billion). Prime Minister Kim Min-seok earlier publicly warned about the possibility of “100 trillion won in damage” if semiconductor production suffers prolonged disruptions. A recent Bank of Korea report delivered to the presidential office reportedly estimated that a prolonged strike combined with the time required to fully restore semiconductor production lines afterward could shave 0.5 percentage point off South Korea’s annual economic growth while causing roughly 30 trillion won in semiconductor output losses. Samsung has also warned of serious operational risks unique to semiconductor manufacturing. The company said cleanroom systems require uninterrupted temperature and humidity control while wafers can become unusable if they fail to move through fabrication processes within strict time limits. A local court earlier this week partially sided with Samsung by ordering the union to maintain minimum staffing levels necessary for safety, facility protection and quality control during any industrial action. The ruling also barred union leaders from blocking access to production facilities. Suppliers have urged the union to reconsider the strike, warning that disruptions to chip production could quickly spread to equipment suppliers, subcontractors and nearby commercial districts. The dispute has additionally exposed tensions within the union itself. Some members from Samsung’s DX division filed injunction requests accusing union leadership of bypassing normal voting procedures and focusing excessively on semiconductor-related bonus demands while failing to adequately represent other business divisions. Legal controversy surrounding the strike is also expected to intensify. South Korea’s Supreme Court has previously ruled that Samsung’s excess-profit incentives are not ordinary wages but post-performance distributions tied to management results, raising broader questions over whether strikes centered on profit-sharing disputes fall within the traditional scope of collective bargaining. 2026-05-20 14:26:36
  • AJP Review: A guide to international taxation in AI age
    AJP Review: A guide to international taxation in AI age SEOUL, May 20 (AJP) -The world of international taxation has never been simple. But in the age of artificial intelligence and digital commerce, it has become extraordinarily complex. As multinational corporations move capital, data, and services across borders at unprecedented speed, governments around the world are entering an increasingly sophisticated struggle to defend their tax sovereignty. International cooperation aimed at preventing tax avoidance has tightened dramatically, while businesses face mounting pressure to navigate the narrow space between legitimate tax planning and aggressive regulatory scrutiny. Into this rapidly shifting landscape comes a book that seeks to map the entire terrain. Kim Myung-jun, the former Commissioner of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, has published a fully revised edition of International Taxation, a comprehensive work widely regarded as one of Korea’s leading practical guides to the field. The new edition arrives roughly five years after the first publication in 2021 and reflects the profound transformation now reshaping the global tax order. The author is not merely an academic theorist. He is a career tax official who spent decades at the center of Korea’s international tax administration system. After entering public service through Korea’s highly competitive civil service examination, he served in a series of influential positions, including Tax Attaché to Korea’s Mission to the OECD, Director of the International Tax Investigation Bureau at the Seoul Regional Tax Office, Director of the National Tax Service Investigation Bureau, and ultimately Commissioner of the Seoul Regional Tax Office. Coming from someone with deep hands in tax investigations, the book offers a deep insight to tax system. Since retiring from public office, Kim has continued his scholarly and professional work in the field of international taxation. He earned a doctorate from University of Seoul Graduate School of Taxation with research focused on the interpretation and application of the Principal Purpose Test (PPT) and the substance-over-form doctrine under the OECD’s Multilateral Instrument framework designed to prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). He has published numerous academic papers through the Korea International Fiscal Association and was awarded the association’s 2025 International Tax Academic Prize for his study on value-added tax obligations in international B2B service transactions. Today, he serves as Senior Adviser and Director of the International Tax and Investment Center at Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, one of Korea’s leading law firms. Yet the significance of International Taxation lies not simply in the résumé of its author, but in the breadth of its intellectual ambition. This revised edition moves well beyond a conventional explanation of tax statutes. It addresses the sweeping transformation of the global tax system in the era of AI and digital commerce, including BEPS 2.0 reforms, the Global Minimum Tax regime, cross-border tax avoidance, and the increasingly contentious struggle over taxation rights in the digital economy. Particularly notable is the book’s treatment of some of the most difficult and controversial concepts in international tax law, including treaty shopping, beneficial ownership, and the Principal Purpose Test. Drawing extensively on OECD standards, international case law, and practical enforcement experience, Kim explains these subjects with unusual clarity and precision. For practitioners, the book functions not merely as a reference volume, but as something closer to a strategic field manual. International taxation has long been regarded as one of the most difficult disciplines in modern law and finance. Kim attempts to reduce that complexity through an unusually reader-friendly structure that includes approximately 190 transaction flow charts, practical case studies, and carefully sourced references to OECD and United Nations Model Tax Convention commentaries. The result is a work that enables readers not only to understand abstract legal doctrines, but also to follow the underlying logic of cross-border transactions and international tax disputes. More importantly, the book approaches taxation not as an isolated legal problem, but as a central component of the emerging global economic order. The rise of AI-driven platforms and digital services has effectively blurred the traditional meaning of national borders. A multinational company may maintain servers in one country, manage data in another, and generate consumer revenue in dozens more simultaneously. Tax systems designed for the industrial age struggle to adapt to such realities. As a consequence, governments are racing to construct new taxation frameworks. The OECD-led Global Minimum Tax initiative represents one of the most ambitious attempts in modern history to coordinate international tax policy and limit aggressive tax avoidance by multinational corporations. For businesses, however, the environment has become increasingly difficult. Regulatory systems overlap, legal interpretations diverge, and compliance risks continue to grow. This is precisely where Kim’s book finds its importance. Because the author understands both the perspective of the taxpayer and the logic of the tax authority, the book maintains a rare balance between enforcement and compliance, between public interest and private strategy. The revised edition also separates transfer pricing taxation into an independent future volume. Kim has indicated that a more advanced and specialized work on transfer pricing will be published separately, a development already attracting considerable interest among tax professionals. The structure of the book reflects the broad scope of modern international taxation. Part One, “General Theory of International Taxation,” examines the foundations of international tax systems, global tax avoidance, tax administration, international tax audits, and the allocation of taxation rights between states. Part Two, “Tax Treaty Theory,” addresses treaty interpretation, residency determination, treaty abuse, beneficial ownership, permanent establishments, double taxation relief, mutual agreement procedures, and tax information exchange. Part Three, “Domestic Source Income Theory,” analyzes taxation issues involving non-residents and foreign corporations, including business income, dividends, royalties, interest income, and personal service income. Part Four, “Prevention of International Tax Avoidance,” explores anti-avoidance frameworks such as GAAR, SAARs, thin capitalization rules, Controlled Foreign Corporation regulations, hybrid mismatch arrangements, BEPS 2.0 reforms, global minimum taxation, offshore tax evasion, and the emerging challenges posed by AI-era commerce. Ultimately, International Taxation is far more than a technical handbook for accountants and tax attorneys. It is, in many respects, a guide to understanding how power, capital, sovereignty, and technology intersect in the twenty-first century. Today, capital flows across borders instantly. Data moves globally. AI systems operate beyond traditional jurisdictional boundaries. Yet taxation authority remains fundamentally national. The tension between those realities is becoming one of the defining economic and political struggles of our age. In that sense, this book speaks not only to tax professionals, government investigators, lawyers, and policymakers, but to anyone seeking to understand the deeper architecture of the emerging global economy. Its greatest strength may lie in the fact that it never reduces taxation to mere technical maneuvering. International taxation is ultimately about fairness, sovereignty, economic strategy, and the moral structure of global capitalism itself. As artificial intelligence reshapes commerce and human life alike, international taxation can no longer remain a niche concern reserved for specialists alone. In an era of increasingly fierce global tax competition, International Taxation stands out as a sophisticated compass — a work capable of helping readers navigate one of the most complicated frontiers of modern economic life. ■ About the author: Kim Myung-jun is widely regarded as one of South Korea’s leading experts in international taxation and cross-border tax investigations. After entering public service through Korea’s national civil service examination system, he spent more than three decades within the National Tax Service, building a career at the highest levels of tax administration and international fiscal policy. Over the course of his career, Kim held several key positions, including Tax Attaché to Korea’s delegation at the OECD, Director of the International Tax Investigation Bureau at the Seoul Regional Tax Office, Director of the National Tax Service Investigation Bureau, and ultimately Commissioner of the Seoul Regional Tax Office. He became particularly well known for his expertise in multinational corporate taxation, international tax enforcement, and cross-border transaction investigations. Few officials in Korea have possessed such extensive firsthand experience in both the design and execution of international tax investigations. Following his retirement from government service, Kim transitioned into academic research and professional advisory work. At University of Seoul Graduate School of Taxation, he completed doctoral research focused on BEPS-related international tax reforms, treaty interpretation, and substance-over-form principles in international tax law. He has since published numerous scholarly articles addressing BEPS, tax treaty interpretation, value-added taxation in international digital commerce, and anti-avoidance frameworks. His recent study on VAT obligations in international B2B service transactions earned him the 2025 International Tax Academic Prize awarded by the Korea International Fiscal Association. Today, Kim serves as Senior Adviser and Director of the International Tax and Investment Center at Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, where he continues to advise corporations, investors, and institutions on international tax strategy and global regulatory developments. More than anything else, Kim belongs to a rare generation of officials who experienced firsthand the transformation of taxation from a largely domestic administrative function into one of the defining geopolitical and economic battlegrounds of the modern world. For that reason, International Taxation reads not merely as a professional textbook, but as the intellectual culmination of a lifetime spent at the front lines of global tax policy and enforcement. 2026-05-20 12:40:52
  • ASIA DEEP INSIGHT: Korea-Japan shuttle diplomacy evolving to civilian-led partnership
    ASIA DEEP INSIGHT: Korea-Japan shuttle diplomacy evolving to civilian-led partnership Andong in May 2026 was not merely a provincial Korean city. It became a symbolic stage in the diplomatic history of Northeast Asia. Under the evening winds of Hahoe Village and the cascading sparks of the traditional Seonyu Julbulnori fire ritual, President Lee Jae-myung and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi sent a message to the world that extended far beyond the formalities of another summit meeting. It was, in essence, a declaration that relations between South Korea and Japan are beginning to move beyond an era defined primarily by historical grievance and emotional confrontation toward one shaped by strategic coexistence and shared prosperity. The summit revolved around five central themes: institutionalizing cooperation in supply chains and energy security; firmly establishing shuttle diplomacy; expanding collaboration in artificial intelligence and advanced technologies; deepening civilian-led exchanges in culture and tourism; and managing historical disputes while building a future-oriented partnership. What made this meeting particularly consequential was the international context in which it unfolded. The Middle East remains unstable. Risks surrounding the Strait of Hormuz continue to threaten global energy markets. Strategic rivalry between the United States and China is intensifying. Russia, China, and North Korea are drawing closer together. In such a world, Seoul and Tokyo can no longer afford to conduct diplomacy through the lens of historical emotion alone. The era now emerging is one of overlapping crises, where energy, supply chains, finance, technology, and security are inseparably intertwined. When President Lee spoke of “a peaceful Korean Peninsula with no need to fight,” and Prime Minister Takaichi emphasized “the free and secure navigation of the Strait of Hormuz,” these were not rhetorical flourishes. They reflected a sober recognition that Northeast Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific are entering a period of profound instability. The world today is moving into three simultaneous conflicts. The first is military conflict. The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have already entered prolonged phases. The second is technological conflict. Competition over artificial intelligence, semiconductors, quantum computing, and space technology has evolved into a new form of industrial Cold War between Washington and Beijing. The third is the conflict over supply chains. LNG, crude oil, rare earth minerals, food security, and battery materials are no longer simply economic concerns; they have become pillars of national survival. In such an environment, South Korea and Japan are too deeply interconnected economically to remain trapped in perpetual confrontation. South Korea possesses strengths in memory semiconductors, batteries, shipbuilding, and advanced manufacturing. Japan remains dominant in materials, components, precision engineering, and foundational industrial technologies. The two nations compete fiercely, yet they are also profoundly interdependent. Serious disruption in one economy would inevitably reverberate through the other. One of the most significant aspects of this summit was the discussion of LNG and crude oil swap arrangements. This was not merely a conversation about energy transactions. It represented the early architecture of a Korea–Japan energy security framework. Japan possesses one of the world’s most sophisticated LNG storage and strategic reserve systems. South Korea maintains globally competitive refining, petrochemical, and shipbuilding infrastructure. If the two countries institutionalize emergency energy-sharing and joint reserve mechanisms, they could substantially mitigate shocks arising from instability in the Middle East. More importantly, the summit hinted at the emergence of a broader Asian supply-chain order. Prime Minister Takaichi’s proposal to deepen resource cooperation with other Asian nations was strategically significant. Implicit within it was the vision of a wider economic-security network linking South Korea, Japan, ASEAN, India, and Australia. At the same time, the geopolitical environment is changing rapidly. American leadership is no longer as stable or predictable as it once was. The second administration of President Donald Trump has embraced an unapologetically transactional form of nationalism. China continues to expand both its economic and military reach. Russia is deepening strategic coordination with Beijing, while North Korea accelerates its nuclear and missile capabilities. Under these circumstances, sustained hostility between Seoul and Tokyo would become a strategic burden for both sides. In this sense, the summit in Andong was diplomacy driven less by idealism than by survival. Previous Korea–Japan summits were often consumed by emotional confrontation over historical memory. This summit, by contrast, was conducted in the language of energy security, supply chains, artificial intelligence, and regional stability. That distinction matters. Equally significant was the summit’s emphasis on regional diplomacy. For decades, Korea–Japan diplomacy revolved almost exclusively around Seoul and Tokyo. This time, however, the diplomatic stage expanded to Andong and Nara, the hometowns of the two leaders. That was more than symbolism. It suggested a transition from capital-centered diplomacy toward diplomacy rooted in local culture, regional identity, and everyday human exchange. Annual people-to-people exchanges between the two countries have already reached approximately 13 million visits. Younger generations increasingly view the neighboring country not primarily as a historical adversary, but as a space of travel, culture, employment, entrepreneurship, and creativity. K-pop and Japanese animation, Korean dramas and Japanese hot-spring culture, Korean digital platforms and Japanese craftsmanship are more likely to converge than collide. That is why Korea–Japan relations must now evolve beyond state-centered diplomacy into a civilian-led community of economy, culture, and tourism. The possibilities are extensive: a Northeast Asian tourism belt connecting Busan, Fukuoka, Osaka, and Jeju; joint AI startup funds; youth entrepreneurship exchanges; Korea–Japan semiconductor graduate institutes; and even cooperative space-development projects. Europe overcame centuries of war to build the European Union. Northeast Asia may not replicate that model directly, but it can begin with practical economic and cultural cooperation. President Lee’s emphasis on artificial intelligence cooperation was particularly important. AI is not simply another industry. It is a foundational technology that will shape the future balance of civilization itself. The United States dominates platforms and capital. China commands scale and manufacturing capacity. South Korea and Japan, by combining technology, manufacturing precision, culture, and content, could help construct an alternative Northeast Asian model for the AI age. Korean semiconductor expertise paired with Japanese materials and equipment technologies could become globally competitive at the highest level. Moreover, the AI era will require new forms of cooperation in digital ethics, privacy protection, and transnational cybercrime prevention. The summit’s discussion of coordinated responses to cross-border scam crimes reflected the beginning of that transition. Yet formidable obstacles remain. Historical disputes continue to represent the most volatile fault line in Korea–Japan relations. The issues of wartime labor, the comfort women tragedy, and the Dokdo/Takeshima territorial dispute could easily resurface. Historical revisionism within segments of the Japanese right also remains a serious concern. At the same time, anti-Japanese sentiment is still periodically exploited within South Korean domestic politics. But the time has come for both countries to move from the politics of resentment to the politics of survival. This does not mean forgetting history. On the contrary, genuine remembrance requires the wisdom to build a future beyond endless hostility. The Confucian principle of yeokjisaji — placing oneself in the position of the other — and the broader East Asian diplomatic tradition of qiú tóng cún yì (“seeking common ground while preserving differences”) offer a more sustainable path forward. South Korea, too, must engage in honest self-reflection. Conservatives have sometimes minimized historical grievances in the name of security cooperation, while progressives have at times instrumentalized anti-Japanese sentiment for domestic political purposes. A more mature balance is now required. Historical issues must be addressed with principle, but not transformed into endless cycles of emotional mobilization. Economic and technological cooperation must be approached as questions of long-term national survival. Youth exchanges should be elevated to the level of national strategy. Local governments and private enterprises must deepen practical collaboration. Shared frameworks for AI governance, digital ethics, and data protection should be institutionalized. Most importantly, genuine reconciliation cannot be achieved solely through summit diplomacy. It must emerge gradually through the daily experiences of ordinary citizens — through tourism, food, sports, art, scholarship, and friendship. Over time, such exchanges become the strongest foundations for peace. There is also a deeper dimension that deserves attention. The future of Korea–Japan relations cannot be sustained by economics and security alone. It must also engage the spiritual and civilizational traditions of both nations. Japan possesses the tradition of Shinto. Unlike Christianity or Buddhism, Shinto is not centered upon a single canonical scripture. Rather, its worldview has been shaped through texts such as the Kojiki, the Nihon Shoki, and ancient ritual prayers known as norito. Through these traditions, Japanese civilization cultivated a profound respect for nature, ancestry, and communal harmony. Korea, meanwhile, preserves the philosophical legacy of the Cheonbu-gyeong. Its vision of harmony between heaven, earth, and humanity has deeply influenced Korean ideas of communal ethics and the spirit of Hongik Ingan — the ideal of benefiting humanity broadly. The spiritual traditions of the two nations are not identical. Yet both ask fundamentally similar questions: How should human beings live in harmony with nature? How should communities coexist without destroying one another? Historically, Korea and Japan were never connected solely through conflict. The exchanges between Baekje and ancient Japan, the transmission of Buddhism and Chinese characters, architectural influences, ceramics, music, industrial knowledge, and modern cultural interactions all testify to centuries of mutual influence. The challenge today is not to erase history, but to confront it honestly while refusing to remain imprisoned by it. Japan must rediscover the Shinto tradition’s respect for nature and communal balance in modern form. Korea must reinterpret the harmonizing philosophy of the Cheonbu-gyeong and the spirit of Hongik Ingan for the AI era. On that foundation, the two countries can cooperate in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, energy security, tourism, youth exchange, and regional diplomacy. That is why the summit in Andong carried significance far beyond protocol. It posed a larger civilizational question: can Korea and Japan move from the emotional burdens of the past toward the shared construction of a future? The sparks of Andong’s traditional Julbulnori fire ritual scatter briefly across the river before reconnecting in streams of light. In many ways, that image captures the history of Korea and Japan themselves. The two nations have often drifted apart through conflict and pain, yet geography, history, economics, and culture continue to draw them back together. The transformations reshaping the world are now too immense for either country to remain trapped in inherited antagonisms. In the age of AI revolution, supply-chain warfare, energy insecurity, and intensifying great-power rivalry, Seoul and Tokyo face a historic choice: remain prisoners of the past, or become co-architects of a shared future. The summit in Andong did not fully answer that question. But it began, cautiously yet unmistakably, to move in that direction. Shuttle diplomacy must now become more than a diplomatic mechanism. It must evolve into a platform for Northeast Asian coexistence and shared prosperity. And at the center of that transformation must stand not governments alone, but citizens; not ideology, but future generations; not resentment, but the long work of civilization itself. *The author is a senior columnist of AJP 2026-05-20 09:18:12
  • Starbucks Korea removes controversial campaign after CEO sacked
    Starbucks Korea removes controversial campaign after CEO sacked SEOUL, May 19 (AJP) -Starbucks Korea apologized and Shinsegae Group, the retailer that owns the largest coffee chain in South Korea, quickly dismissed its chief executive Monday after facing fierce public backlash and condemnation from President Lee Jae Myung over a controversial “Tank Day” marketing campaign launched on the anniversary of South Korea’s May 18 pro-democracy uprising. The coffee chain had promoted discounted “Tank” tumblers through an online event featuring the slogan “Tak!” — expressions critics said invoked traumatic memories of military dictatorship and state violence. The word “tank” was widely interpreted as referencing armored vehicles deployed by martial law troops during the 1980 Gwangju Democratic Uprising, while “tak” recalled the infamous phrase tied to the 1987 torture death of student activist Park Jong-chol. The backlash spread rapidly across social media and civic groups, with accusations that the campaign mocked Korea’s democracy movement and reflected a “shallow understanding of history, with some vowing to launch a boycott of Starbucks Korea. Lee also denounced the campaign in a post on X, calling it “the inhumane behavior of profiteers who deny the values of the Republic of Korea, fundamental human rights and democracy.” He questioned how such an event could be held on a day commemorating those killed during the country’s democratic struggle and demanded accountability. The May 18 Democratic Uprising, known in Korea as the 5·18 Democratization Movement, began in the southwestern city of Gwangju in 1980 after citizens protested against the military regime of Chun Doo Hwan. Troops sent to suppress the demonstrations opened fire on civilians, leaving hundreds dead or missing. The uprising later became a defining symbol of South Korea’s democratization movement and remains one of the country’s most politically and emotionally significant historical events. The campaign’s “Tak!” slogan also evoked the military government’s notorious attempt to cover up Park Jong-chol’s torture death in 1987. Authorities at the time falsely claimed Park died after investigators hit a desk with a “tak” sound, causing him to collapse — a statement that became emblematic of authoritarian deception and brutality. Shinsegae Group Chairman Chung Yong-jin ordered what the company described as its “strongest possible disciplinary action,” removing Starbucks Korea CEO Son Jung-hyun and another executive involved in planning the campaign. Starbucks Korea suspended the promotion and issued multiple public apologies. 2026-05-19 07:29:53
  • AJP Eye: Samsung strike crisis lays bare Koreas dependence on one company
    AJP Eye: Samsung strike crisis lays bare Korea's dependence on one company SEOUL, May 18 (AJP) -A rare coalition of voices — the government, opposition politicians and even the central bank — has united this week to try to head off a walkout at the world's largest memory chipmaker, underscoring the outsized weight of Samsung Electronics - responsible for roughly one-fifth of South Korea's exports and the benchmark KOSPI index. What began as a labor dispute over bonuses has rapidly become a national economic and political flashpoint, exposing how deeply the country's economy, financial markets and policy stability remain tied to the fortunes of a single corporate giant. Samsung Electronics labor and management resumed talks Monday — a second round of post-mediation negotiations at the Central Labor Relations Commission in Sejong — with three days left before the union's planned 18-day general strike, set to begin May 21. Negotiators remained deadlocked in the backdrop of heavy pressure. "It's a parallel line," commission chairman Park Soo-geun told reporters repeatedly outside the mediation room when asked whether any progress had been made. No compromise proposal had been drafted as of late afternoon. The marathon negotiations, which began at 10 a.m. Monday and were scheduled to continue Tuesday, are widely viewed as the final realistic opportunity to avert the first prolonged large-scale strike in Samsung's semiconductor division. At the heart of the standoff is the union's demand to abolish the existing 50 percent cap on performance bonuses and lock in a formula allocating 15 percent of operating profit to bonus pools. Management has countered with a three-year proposal that would preserve the current Overall Performance Incentive framework while setting aside additional profit-sharing funds only if the Device Solutions division's operating profit surpasses 200 trillion won ($145 billion). An emergency report recently submitted by the Bank of Korea to the presidential office warned that an 18-day strike followed by a prolonged production recovery could shave as much as 0.5 percentage point off South Korea's economic growth this year. The central bank estimated semiconductor production losses at around 30 trillion won if memory chip lines suffer a full shutdown and require three additional weeks to normalize — effectively erasing roughly 15 trillion won in GDP value-added from an economy forecast to grow about 2.5 percent this year. The central bank reportedly modeled multiple scenarios based on shutdown rates, supply chain disruptions and global chip pricing. The concern reflects the uniquely fragile structure of chip fabrication. Unlike conventional manufacturing, semiconductor production flows continuously around the clock, with wafers moving through tightly synchronized processes measured in seconds. Even small delays can ripple across entire facilities. Industry watchers estimate Samsung's memory operations alone could lose nearly 900 billion won per day if wafers miss designated processing windows and must be discarded. Samsung controls more than 40 percent of the global DRAM market, meaning any disruption would reverberate across global electronics supply chains and could trigger sharp price increases in memory chips used in smartphones, AI servers and personal computers. The government's increasingly direct intervention illustrates the scale of concern. Prime Minister Kim Min-seok warned over the weekend that the upcoming talks represented "effectively the last chance" to prevent a strike, while officials openly raised the possibility of invoking emergency arbitration powers — a rarely used measure that can suspend strikes deemed harmful to the national economy. President Lee Jae Myung added further pressure Monday in a lengthy social media post, acknowledging that labor rights are constitutionally protected but arguing they may be limited "for public welfare" so long as their essential substance is not violated. "In a free democratic and capitalist market economy like South Korea, labor must be respected as much as business, and management rights must be respected as much as labor rights," Lee wrote. His remarks were widely interpreted as a warning that the administration remains prepared to escalate intervention if negotiations collapse. The political establishment, business groups and shareholder activists have since joined the pressure campaign. Six major business lobbies — including the Korea Enterprises Federation and the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry — issued a joint statement urging the union to stand down and calling on the government to invoke emergency arbitration immediately if a walkout proceeds. A retail shareholder advocacy group warned separately that institutionalizing fixed profit-sharing formulas could infringe on shareholder property rights and conflict with corporate capital principles. The union fired back, accusing the government of acting as Samsung's spokesperson rather than an impartial mediator. The National Samsung Electronics Union argued that official warnings about "months-long paralysis" overstated operational realities, noting that semiconductor facilities routinely undergo temporary shutdowns and maintenance without catastrophic consequences. Adding another dimension to the confrontation, a Suwon court on Monday partially granted Samsung's injunction request to prohibit illegal strike actions. The court barred the union from occupying production and research facilities and ordered workers responsible for critical safety, drainage, ventilation and wafer protection to maintain normal staffing throughout any strike — effectively ensuring roughly 7,000 essential employees remain on site and reducing the likelihood of a complete plant shutdown. Still, industry experts warned that even without a full shutdown, prolonged labor disruption could severely damage productivity, delay equipment maintenance and disrupt high-value process calibration. "Even slight imbalances in one section of the semiconductor flow can trigger a domino effect across upstream and downstream processes," one industry executive said. The confrontation has also become a broader symbol of South Korea's economic concentration risk. For decades, Samsung Electronics has functioned not merely as a corporation but as a pillar of national growth — driving exports, tax revenue, pension returns and market sentiment. That central role has grown more pronounced during the global AI boom, with Samsung and rival SK hynix powering much of Korea's recent stock market rally. A prolonged disruption now threatens not only chip exports but also currency stability, investor confidence and broader perceptions of Korea's economic resilience. As the clock ticks toward a potential disruption in global chip supplies, South Korea this week finds itself confronting an uncomfortable reality: a labor dispute inside Samsung Electronics has become a stress test for the limits of the country’s entire economic model. 2026-05-18 18:35:07
  • Son Heung-min heads to fourth World Cup as Korea names 26-man squad
    Son Heung-min heads to fourth World Cup as Korea names 26-man squad SEOUL, May 17 (AJP) - Son Heung-min will lead South Korea to his fourth and possibly final World Cup after head coach Hong Myung-bo named the 26-man squad for the 2026 tournament on Saturday. Hong announced the roster in Seoul, selecting three forwards, 10 midfielders, 10 defenders and three goalkeepers for the June 11-July 19 World Cup in North America. South Korea competes in Group A against Czechia, South Africa and Mexico, with all three group-stage matches to be played in Mexico. Son, now with Los Angeles FC, will become only the fourth South Korean player to appear in four World Cups, joining Hong Myung-bo, Hwang Sun-hong and former goalkeeper Lee Woon-jae. The 33-year-old previously played at the 2014 Brazil, 2018 Russia and 2022 Qatar tournaments. Key European-based players Lee Kang-in of Paris Saint-Germain and Kim Min-jae of Bayern Munich were also included, along with Mainz midfielder Lee Jae-sung and Feyenoord midfielder Hwang In-beom, who is recovering from an ankle injury. Besiktas forward Oh Hyeon-gyu earned his first World Cup call-up after serving as a reserve player at the 2022 tournament, when Son was recovering from a facial fracture but ultimately played all four matches in Qatar wearing a protective mask. Jens Castrop of Borussia Monchengladbach also made history as the first foreign-born player of mixed heritage to be named to South Korea’s World Cup squad. The 22-year-old was born to a Korean mother and German father. Gangwon FC defender Lee Gi-hyuk was among the surprise selections. The left-footed center back, who has only one senior cap, was chosen to help fill the gap left by injured defender Kim Ju-sung. Veteran goalkeepers Kim Seung-gyu and Jo Hyeon-woo were both included, continuing their long-running competition for the No. 1 spot. Kim, 35, is the oldest player in the squad, while Castrop and Stoke City midfielder Bae Jun-ho, both 22, are the youngest. Hong also named three “training partners”: Jeonbuk midfielder Kang Sang-yoon, Jeonbuk defender Cho Wi-je and FC Seoul goalkeeper Yoon Ki-wook. South Korea will open its campaign against Czechia in Guadalajara on June 11, followed by Mexico on June 18 and South Africa in Monterrey on June 24. The team will depart for Salt Lake City on Monday for altitude training before playing friendlies against Trinidad and Tobago and El Salvador. South Korea will then move to its base camp in Guadalajara on June 5. Hong said the expanded 48-team tournament, staged across three countries for the first time, would test teams’ ability to cope with travel, altitude and climate conditions. “We will try to turn these challenges into opportunities to pull off surprises,” Hong said. “We have always been underdogs at World Cups, and this year’s tournament will be a good opportunity for us to stage an upset.” 2026-05-17 06:16:37
  • India Day Celebrated on the Han River: A Cultural Exchange
    India Day Celebrated on the Han River: A Cultural Exchange May brought an early summer to the Han River. Under a clear blue sky without a hint of fine dust, brilliant sunlight danced on the silver waves. That afternoon, fresh green buds painted the Yeouido riverside in vivid colors, while an unfamiliar scent wafted through the river breeze—an aromatic blend of saffron, turmeric, and cardamom, a smell rarely encountered in the heart of Seoul.People paused, their ears perked up, and they found themselves walking toward the source of the enticing aroma.This was the inaugural 'India Day' event organized by the Indian Embassy in South Korea. Booths lined both sides of the venue, symbolizing India's 28 states. Cultures from North and South India, as well as from the eastern and western regions, were showcased along the riverside. Saffron, cobalt blue, crimson, and golden fabrics fluttered in the May breeze, while traditional dances and songs performed by Indians from various regions filled the stage.As attendees followed the scent of spices, they soon found themselves clapping along to the unfamiliar rhythms.Gokarnal Das, the Indian Ambassador to South Korea, joked, "We specially ordered the weather from India for today." Indeed, the riverside in Yeouido felt more like a festive square in an Indian city than a part of Seoul. People arrived on bikes, couples strolled with their dogs, and families lined up for henna experiences, mingling naturally under the tents.However, the significance of the Han River on this day cannot be fully captured by the aroma of spices or the vibrant dances.India is home to 1.47 billion people, representing a diverse tapestry of cultures. It is not a monolithic nation; it comprises 28 states, hundreds of tribes, dozens of official languages, and a civilization with thousands of years of history. Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Sikhism all have roots in this land, which is home to one of the world's oldest urban civilizations.How have we understood such a country until now?Curry and yoga. Bollywood and IT developers. For a long time, this has been the extent of how Korean society has engaged with India. Conversely, for Indians, Korea has been synonymous with Samsung, Hyundai, and K-pop. The two great civilizations have reduced each other to a few keywords over the years.This disparity is reflected in numbers. Approximately 18,000 Indians reside in South Korea, while the number of Koreans living in India is even lower. Although trade has rapidly expanded, there remains a significant gap in language and talent to truly understand each other. The recent Korea-India summit, which had to rely on double interpretation due to the absence of a Hindi interpreter, highlights this reality. While the economies have already shaken hands, the people and cultures have yet to exchange a proper greeting.As the global balance of power shifts, India is no longer a distant land.Emerging as a strategic counterbalance between the United States and China, India is the world's most populous country and a key market for Korean companies over the next decade. Geopolitically and economically, India has become a crucial partner for Korea. However, true partnership cannot be built solely on agreements and trade statistics. It requires an understanding of each other's histories, sharing meals, and experiencing each other's rhythms.Thus, the scenes along the Han River that day created memories that will last longer than any diplomatic document.Citizens gathered in the shade of trees, listening to the sounds of traditional Indian instruments. Children widened their eyes at the unfamiliar scent of spices. Young couples laughed as henna designs were drawn on their hands. A middle-aged man fumbled through a conversation with an Indian booth operator while savoring a plate of biryani. These moments etched a deeper connection between the two nations than any official statement could.The initial encounters between civilizations are often simple. They begin with smells, sounds, tastes, and gestures. A bowl of curry can bridge gaps more effectively than grand declarations, and a hand drawing henna can build connections more meaningfully than a handshake between leaders.Ambassador Gokarnal Das remarked, "As the saying goes, when hearts connect, today’s gathering symbolizes the unity of Korean and Indian cultures." Kwak Young-gil, chairman of the Aju Media Group, added, "This is not just a cultural event; it is a moment for both countries to understand each other's histories and cultures and to forge future innovations and friendships together."The Han River is inherently an open space. It is a place where anyone can pass through, linger, and mingle. It is not just the river of Seoul citizens but belongs to everyone who traverses this city. Symbolically, on that open riverside, Seoul and Delhi, Busan and Mumbai, kimchi and curry, K-pop and Bollywood flowed side by side.Perhaps these two civilizations are just beginning to discover each other. Some may say it is too late. However, considering the day when the child who first paused to smell the spices on the Han River grows up and thinks about visiting India, today may not be such a late start after all.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-17 06:07:36
  • AJP Market Watch: Black Fridays reality check as the spread has spoken
    AJP Market Watch: Black Friday's reality check as the spread has spoken SEOUL, May 16 (AJP) -There is one number that explains Friday better than any index chart. On May 15, the yield gap between Korea's 10-year government bond and its U.S. equivalent compressed to roughly 27 basis points. That is historically thin. An emerging market sovereign with Korea's energy-import dependence, household debt burden, and geopolitical exposure normally commands a meaningfully larger cushion above U.S. Treasuries. A thinning of that cushion can be a warning that global capital has begun whether the terms of staying in Korea still make sense. On Black Friday, enough of it decided they did not. The Kospi plunged 6.12 percent to wipe all of its weekly gains to close at 7,493.18 after touching 8,046.78 intraday. The won broke through 1,500 per dollar. The 10-year Korea Treasury bond yield spiked 13.2 basis points in a single session to 4.217 percent. Equities, bonds, and the currency moved against Korea at the same time — the textbook anatomy of an emerging-market risk-off episode, not a routine profit-taking day. Japan fell 1.99 percent and Taiwan 1.39 percent on the same session. Korea's far deeper loss was not coincidental. It was the price of having built one of the world's most concentrated single-factor markets — AI and semiconductors — and then pretending that concentration carried no risk. How the spread got this thin The compression did not happen overnight. The Kospi had risen 77.81 percent since year-end 2025, driven almost entirely by semiconductor and AI names. Samsung Electronics and SK hynix surged 9 percent and 19 percent respectively in May alone before Black Friday's reversal. The 50-day dispersion ratio reached 131 percent on May 14 — a level historically associated with sharp near-term corrections and one that, during the dot-com bubble, preceded pullbacks within one to three weeks. Foreign investors piled in throughout, accumulating positions that made them the most exposed constituency the moment sentiment turned. The market had, in effect, willed a world into existence where AI enthusiasm permanently suppressed every other variable: interest rates, energy prices, geopolitical risk, currency. That world ended on Black Friday when global bond markets delivered a coordinated and unambiguous rebuke. The global rout that changed the equation The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield settled at 4.595 percent, its highest closing level since February 2025. The 30-year rose roughly 12 basis points to 5.127 percent, its highest since 2007. Japan's 30-year yield broke above 4 percent for the first time in history, while the 10-year JGB briefly touched 2.72 percent — a 29-year high — after Japan's April corporate goods price index came in at 4.9 precent year-on-year, nearly double the market's 3.0-percent forecast. The U.K.'s 30-year gilt surged 19 basis points to 5.85 percent, its highest since 1998. Market watchers noted the U.S. move was "a direct result of what's happening in non-U.S. yields" — when quality sovereign bonds offer more elsewhere, Treasuries must rise to compete. The thread connecting every market was energy. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shut. President Trump's visit to Beijing produced no diplomatic progress on the Iran conflict. U.S. crude rose 4.2 percent to $105.42 a barrel. WTI is now 76.19 eprcent above its year-end 2024 level; Brent is 73.74 percent higher. With roughly 20 percent of the world's seaborne oil transiting the Strait, the market has stopped treating the disruption as temporary. Energy costs are being priced as a structural, multi-quarter inflation input — and interest rates, by extension, as higher for longer than anyone had been willing to admit. The spread of barely 27 basis points between Korean and U.S. sovereign bonds can mean the carry advantage of holding Korean bonds over Treasuries has effectively vanished. For foreign investors running dollar-denominated portfolios, the question becomes brutal in its simplicity: why accept Korean sovereign risk, currency risk, and geopolitical risk for a spread that barely covers transaction costs? On Black Friday, the answer was: they won't. Foreigners net-sold 6.3173 trillion won of Kospi-listed shares in a single session on Friday, pushing their cumulative 2026 net equity selling to 98.2 trillion won across seven consecutive days of outflows. The won's close at 1,500.8 — up 0.66 prercent on the day and 4.29 percent above year-end — was the currency market's verdict on the same calculation. On the same day, the dollar index moved only 0.30 percent. USDJPY was nearly flat. A won above 1,500 raises the won-denominated cost of every barrel of $105 oil directly and immediately. A new member, a new arithmetic It is into this environment — rising yields, a vanishing spread, a won through 1,500, and imported inflation accelerating — that the Bank of Korea's Monetary Policy Board convenes on May 28. Shin Sung-hwan, the BOK's most consistent dovish voice — the author of seven dissenting opinions, five of which called for rate cuts — retired this week. His seat was filled by Kim Jin-ill, a former Korea University professor who held his inauguration ceremony at the BOK on Black Friday afternoon, four days after the Korea Federation of Banks recommended him to succeed Shin. His term began immediately upon Shin's retirement, in accordance with the Bank of Korea Act. Kim is not merely less dovish than his predecessor. He is pointedly hawkish, and has not tried to conceal it. He spent combined years at the Federal Reserve as an invited economist — from 1996 to 1998 and from 2003 to 2010 — and brings that institutional grounding directly to his policy instincts. After his nomination, he said that if he were to place a dot on a hypothetical BOK dot plot, it would sit "half a click" — 0.125 percentage points — above the board's average or median. He framed that not as a temporary lean but as a reflection of his foundational view that price stability is a central bank's non-negotiable core mandate. That view aligns him squarely with BOK Governor Shin Hyun-song, himself a financial-stability hawk who in 2008 advocated preemptive rate hikes. Kim's opening words at his inauguration made the direction unmistakable. He began by pointing out that "inflationary concerns have intensified due to high oil prices caused by the war in the Middle East" and named exchange rate risks from capital outflows as a second front. The board's balance has shifted. Under former Governor Rhee, the benchmark rate was held at 2.5 percent through seven consecutive sessions ending April 10, a freeze justified partly by the need to shield households carrying roughly 2,000 trillion won ($1.36 trillion) in debt. The Fed closes the exit What the BOK's new composition signals domestically, the Fed's transition confirms from the outside. Kevin Warsh — the "hawkish dove" who once argued for simultaneous balance-sheet reduction and rate cuts — now leads the institution. He inherits an inflation problem: U.S. April CPI came in at 3.8 perccent, the highest in roughly three years. CME FedWatch data shows markets pricing a 50 percent probability of a 25-basis-point Fed hike by December, up from 13.6 percent just one week earlier. Fed presidents in Chicago and Boston have already floated rate increases aloud. This external configuration closes the BOK's room to maneuver. If the Fed holds or hikes and U.S. yields continue rising, Korea's 27-basis-point spread compresses further — or inverts at shorter maturities. None of this forecloses the long-term investment case. The semiconductor cycle has not reversed. Samsung's and SK hynix's order books remain strong. Customer deposits above 130 trillion won confirm that domestic liquidity has not fled. The Kospi still trades nearly 80 percent above year-end 2025, which imply considerable optimism about the AI earnings cycle, regardless of Friday's steep retreat. Some of that optimism is warranted. But the government's priority should not be defending the stock index. It should be stabilizing the won and the bond market, managing the systemic exposure embedded in 2,000 trillion won of household debt, and preserving the policy credibility that short-term market appeasement would erode. What the Seoul market witnessed this week was a correction toward a reality that the sovereign spread had been quietly signaling for weeks. On Black Friday, the rest of the market finally caught up. 2026-05-16 08:41:23
  • Korea and India in One Frame: Bridging a translation gap
    Korea and India in One Frame: Bridging a translation gap SEOUL, May 15 (AJP) -The meeting between South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi on April 20 was amicable, but slow. The words of both leaders traveled through English first then into Hindi because the Korean entourage lacked a translator who spoke Hindi. Technically, communication occurred. But something was lost in that detour, and everyone in the room knew it. Back at home, Lee complained out loud. At a cabinet meeting on April 28, he rebuked Foreign Minister Cho Hyun directly: find a way, he said, to make sure this never happens again. Train someone. Grow one. It is absurd, he argued, to navigate a country of 1.4 billion people through double translation. The rebuke was warranted. But the problem it exposed runs deeper than a staffing gap in the foreign ministry. Korea and India are not strangers by any reasonable measure. They share a continent. They share the memory of colonial humiliation and the hard-won pride of recovery. They share booming trade figures, growing diplomatic ties, and — increasingly — the attention of the same geopolitical moment. And yet, for decades, India has occupied a curious blind spot in the Korean imagination: present in the abstract, absent in the particular. A civilization of 1.47 billion people, reduced in popular consciousness to a handful of images. The interpreter was missing because, for a long time, the genuine curiosity was too. Language is a measure of intent. The languages a nation chooses to learn are a record of where it has decided to look. By that measure, India has long sat outside Korea's field of vision. Not out of hostility — out of something perhaps more consequential: indifference dressed as familiarity. This is what made the response to this year's Korea-India Essay and AI Video and cohosted by the Indian Cultural Centre and the Embassy of India in Seoul and Aju Press (AJP). Over 550 people answered to our call. They were students, writers, and ordinary citizens who had decided, for reasons of their own, to look. What they saw was worth recording. Sonali Ray, whose essay One Frame, Two Worlds took the top prize, wrote about kimchi and Indian achar — not as the same food, but as the same idea. Two cultures that understood, long before modern science confirmed it, that fermentation is philosophy: the patient transformation of humble ingredients into something alive and complex. She wrote about Korean pojangmacha and Indian dhabas operating on identical democratic principles — honest food, generous portions, a cook with opinions no critic could shake. She wrote about the way a Korean grandmother's doenjang jjigae and an Indian mother's dal speak the same grammar of love: slow-cooked, unpretentious, irreplaceable. These are not the observations of someone looking at a foreign country. They are the observations of someone recognizing a reflection. Kim Ji-young, who took the gold prize, arrived at India from a different direction — through language itself. In Hindi, she discovered, a single word carries two opposite meanings: kal means both yesterday and tomorrow. For a student of Hindi, it is an early lesson in grammar. For Kim, it became something else: a lens through which to examine a culture that refuses the false comfort of finality. She encountered this refusal everywhere — in the Indian professor who answered questions with a tilt of the head meaning perhaps, in the philosopher Sri Aurobindo's words that man is a transitional being, never complete, always becoming. She returned to Korea with a quieter mind and a more honest question: why are we so desperate to conclude? It is a question worth sitting with. Korea is a society that has, at remarkable speed, built extraordinary things. That speed has costs. Among them is a certain intolerance for ambiguity — a cultural impatience that manifests in everything from the pressure to declare one's MBTI type within minutes of meeting a stranger, to the fear that a classroom moment of genuine connection might constitute a legal liability. Kim's essay does not argue for India over Korea. It argues for what each might offer the other: that a civilization comfortable with kal — yesterday and tomorrow in a single breath — might have something to teach one that has forgotten how to wait. This is what cultural exchange looks like when it works. Not the exchange of tourist impressions, not the soft diplomacy of trade delegations, but the slow, unglamorous work of one person genuinely trying to understand how another civilization has organized its experience of being human. The awards ceremony takes place tomorrow, May 16th, at Yeouido Hangang Park, alongside India Day festivities that will fill the riverbank with color, music, and the specific warmth of two cultures meeting in the open air. It is, by any measure, a small event. It will not produce a Hindi interpreter overnight. It will not, by itself, close the distance that an empty chair at a translation table exposed. But 550 people looked toward India this year and found, in that looking, something that surprised them. A word that contains its own opposite. A pickle that is not the same pickle but the same wisdom. A civilization that has been there all along, patient as fermentation, waiting to be seen whole. The summit will happen again. Next time, perhaps, the words will travel direct. 2026-05-15 14:09:47
  • Korea-India Cultural Contest Highlights Language Barriers and Understanding
    Korea-India Cultural Contest Highlights Language Barriers and Understanding There was no Hindi interpreter present. In a meeting with a country of 1.5 billion people, South Korea could not provide a single person fluent in that language. Instead, a double interpretation through English conveyed the words of both leaders.During a Cabinet meeting on April 28, President Lee Jae-myung directly reprimanded Foreign Minister Park Jin. "We need to ensure that we can avoid double interpretation in the future by training at least one person in special education," he said.While the reprimand focused on the lack of personnel, it also highlighted a more uncomfortable reality. South Korea and India are both located on the Asian continent, share thousands of years of civilization, and have experienced colonial pain together. Despite having established diplomatic relations long ago and increasing trade each year, the two countries still feel distant from one another. The absence of a single interpreter was not a coincidence but a result of structural indifference.Language is a measure of interest. The languages we choose to learn reflect how seriously we regard those countries. By that standard, India has long been a low priority.To bridge this gap, the Indian Cultural Center in Korea, the Indian Embassy, and Aju Media collaborated to launch the '2026 Korea-India AI Video and Essay Contest,' which drew a passionate response from about 550 participants. The responses were remarkable.Sonali Ray, who won the essay grand prize, compared Seoul's Gwangjang Market with India's bazaars. She noted that while kimchi and achar (Indian pickles) are not the same food, they share a common philosophy. Both civilizations understood the wisdom of transforming simple ingredients into something complex and vibrant through fermentation and patience.Kim Ji-young, who won the gold prize, approached India from a different angle. His essay began with the observation that the Hindi words for 'yesterday' and 'tomorrow' are expressed with the same term, 'kal.' This led him to reflect on India's philosophy of rejecting definitive conclusions.Quoting independence activist Aurobindo, who said, "Humans are transitional beings and never complete," he quietly examined the impatience of modern Korean society, which often defines each other by four letters of the MBTI. In a country where yesterday is tomorrow and tomorrow is yesterday, he learned a life attitude of not rushing to conclusions.Ultimately, the two essays, though expressed in different languages, convey the same message: we have not known India well enough.Kim Dong-hee's AI video titled 'Together We Soar Higher,' which won the top prize in the video category, captured a similar sentiment in a different format. It showcased what could emerge when Korea's planning capabilities meet India's creative sensibilities in a rapidly changing digital environment.Double interpretation is a language issue. However, at a deeper level, it is a matter of understanding. The 550 participants took the opportunity to explore India through this contest. They researched Indian cuisine, read about Indian history, and pondered the meaning of a single Hindi word. Each of these actions, in a different way but no less significant, helped bridge the distance between the two countries.On May 16, an India Culture Day event will be held at Yeouido Hangang Park. Contest winners will stand on the podium that day. As the colors and sounds of India spread over the Han River, it may mark the first scene where the distance of double interpretation transforms into a bridge of bilingual understanding. In a country where yesterday and tomorrow are the same word, we are just beginning to greet that nation properly.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-15 13:26:10