Hanwha Solutions Rights Offering Stalled as Regulators Seek More Disclosure Hanwha Solutions’ plan for a rights offering has been held up after financial regulators repeatedly demanded revisions. Even after the company cut the size and resubmitted the filing, it was blocked twice, underscoring that the issue goes beyond paperwork. The episode shows that corporate fundraising is no longer treated simply as a matter of raising money, but as a test of market trust and disclosure. A rights offering is a basic way for companies to strengthen capital. Raising funds to reduce debt and improve financial stability is generally viewed positively, since debt repayment is central to improving a balance sheet. But this case drew skepticism because saying the money will reduce debt is not enough to persuade investors. The core question is not debt repayment itself, but what comes next. The company did not sufficiently explain whether the offering was aimed only at short-term liquidity or tied to a medium- to long-term growth strategy. Markets look beyond near-term financial repairs to a credible path to future value creation. For investors, the key is not only why money is needed now, but what future it is expected to produce. Without that link, a rights offering can be read less as a necessary step and more as a warning sign. Another point is the role of the Financial Supervisory Service. The entity that put the brakes on the offering was not the market but the regulator, indicating that minimum disclosure standards were not met even before investors could make their own judgments. Regulators check transparency and formal requirements; markets then assess value based on that information. This case suggests the basic conditions for such evaluation were not in place. Regulatory intervention, however, should not be dismissed as excessive. Capital markets run on trust. In South Korea, where retail investors make up a large share of trading, information gaps can be significant, making a degree of advance screening necessary. The goal is not to replace the market, but to ensure the minimum foundation for it to function. Stronger oversight does not automatically mean a more mature market, but it can be part of a transition toward building trust. For companies, the episode offers clear lessons. First, the purpose of fundraising must be specific. Vague references to “financial improvement” are not enough; companies should explain what they will invest in, what returns they expect and when results may appear. Second, advance communication with investors is essential. Because a rights offering dilutes existing shareholders, companies need a process to build understanding and consent. Third, companies should present realistic measures to address concerns about shareholder value. It may be impractical to demand share buybacks or higher dividends from a cash-strapped firm. Instead, companies can build trust by setting a reasonable discount rate, attaching clear conditions to how funds will be used and strengthening management accountability. What matters is not formal fixes, but a plan investors can accept. Financial authorities also need a balanced approach. Investor protection matters, but oversight should not choke off normal corporate fundraising. Consistent standards and a predictable review process would help companies prepare and support broader market confidence. Ultimately, the point is straightforward: Raising capital is not simply a right; it is a process of persuasion. When a company asks the market for money without adequate explanation, the effort loses legitimacy. A rights offering is not just numbers; it is a narrative about what future a company intends to build. The Hanwha Solutions case is not only about one company. It reflects a South Korean capital market moving toward demanding more detailed disclosure and higher trust. Companies should raise transparency, regulators should clarify standards, and markets should judge on that basis. Only when those pieces align can the capital market function properly. Fundraising without trust eventually stops. And that trust begins not with figures, but with clear explanations.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-01 08:42:58

Lesson From Korea Mine Reclamation Corp.’s Boleo Exit: Overseas Resource Investment Needs Clear Rules After investing 3 trillion won, it exited for about 2,900 won. By the numbers alone, the outcome is shocking and, judged only by the result, a clear failure. The Mexico Boleo copper mine project involving the Korea Mine Reclamation Corp. ended with a withdrawal that effectively wiped out most of the investment. The case is more than a bad deal; it highlights where South Korea’s approach to overseas resource development broke down. But drawing the conclusion that South Korea should scale back overseas resource investment misreads the lesson. The need is the opposite: to do more, but in a fundamentally different way. Minerals are not optional; they underpin industrial survival. Semiconductors, batteries, electric vehicles and defense industries all depend on minerals. Without copper, nickel, lithium and cobalt, production itself is not possible. The problem is not investing. It is how to invest. This case can be summed up in one line: There was willingness to invest, but no clear investment standards. A look at global resource development makes the contrast clearer. Japan has a well-known success story: the Escondida copper mine in Chile, backed by Japanese trading houses and the government, remains a steady profit-maker. Japan spent years in the early stage verifying geological data and cost structures, then reduced risk through long-term purchase contracts. The pace was slow, but the standards were clear. Japan’s approach to Australian iron ore followed a similar logic. It did not stop at buying stakes; it designed long-term supply chains linked to steelmakers, tying resource security to industrial strategy. The result was stable raw-material supply and returns. Japan has also had failures, including losses in some oil and gas projects in Indonesia after underestimating political risk. The key difference was the speed of cutting losses. When profitability collapsed, it chose withdrawal over additional investment, limiting damage. There were setbacks, but the system held. China’s model is different. China National Petroleum Corp. and Aluminum Corp. of China pursued aggressive resource acquisitions in Africa and South America. Some projects were maintained despite losses, with risk managed through a combination of diplomacy and financial support. China had the capacity and political leverage to absorb failures. South Korea also has successes. The Roy Hill iron ore project in Australia, involving POSCO, is a leading example. POSCO secured a stable production structure after its initial investment and has generated long-term returns, aided by a strategic approach tied to steel production rather than a simple equity stake. Another example is SK Innovation’s Peru LNG project. SK Innovation invested step by step from exploration to production, spreading risk and ultimately building a stable profit structure. In both cases, selection mattered more than speed. Failures, however, are familiar. Past overseas oil development and some mineral projects expanded losses after investing on optimistic early forecasts, then facing price declines and rising costs. The common thread was unclear investment standards and delayed decisions to withdraw. Boleo was not fundamentally different. Weak geological conditions, high production costs and local risks were present from the start. Investment proceeded anyway, and losses accumulated. The problem is often described as poor screening. That is true, but incomplete. In resource development, what happens after the investment can matter more than the entry point. Policy shifts by host governments, tighter environmental rules and swings in global prices are hard to predict. Resource development is therefore about screening and geopolitics at the same time. South Korea sits in the middle: it lacks China’s ability to push through risk and has not fully built Japan’s refined system. That makes standards more important than ever. First, projects must be classified. Not every project should be judged by the same yardstick. Strategic assets tied directly to supply chains, such as rare earths and other critical minerals, may warrant accepting a certain level of loss to secure access. More common metal projects should be approached on profitability. Without this distinction, every investment becomes ambiguous. Second, exit rules must be explicit. As Japan’s experience shows, acknowledging failure quickly is the way to limit losses. A structure is needed in which losses beyond a set threshold trigger an automatic review. Decisions should be made by system, not instinct. Third, the roles of the public and private sectors should be separated. Early-stage exploration has a high failure rate, making private participation difficult, so a public role is necessary. But if decisions remain vulnerable to politics and bureaucracy, the same problems will recur. The decision-making structure should change through outside expert review, independent investment committees and mandatory exit standards. Fourth, the approach to failure must change. Resource development is an industry with frequent failures. The issue is not failure itself, but unmanaged failure. A system that ignores foreseeable risks or withdraws only after losses balloon must be corrected. The core lesson is straightforward: Overseas resource investment should continue, but not in the current way. The priority is not increasing the size of investment, but establishing decision standards first. The case of turning 3 trillion won into 2,700 won is not only a record of loss; it is evidence of missing standards. Without resources, industry is shaken. But misguided investment also shakes industry. National strategy is to balance those risks. Resources are necessary. But more important than knowing where to invest is knowing when to stop. The success or failure of overseas resource development ultimately comes down not to willingness, but to the ability to screen and decide. 2026-05-01 08:39:19

Regulator’s warning to Lotte Card CEO signals tougher accountability for data breaches South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service has reportedly decided on a business suspension and an administrative fine for Lotte Card over a large-scale customer data leak, and also issued a disciplinary warning to former CEO Cho Jwa-jin. Holding a top executive responsible in a financial-sector data breach carries clear symbolic weight. It signals that security failures will not be treated solely as an IT department mistake or only as the work of outside hackers. In many past incidents, companies often ended accountability at the working level, focusing on system managers or contractors while the CEO issued an apology and stepped back. In digital finance, that approach is increasingly untenable because protecting customer information is a management issue tied to a company’s survival. The leaked Lotte Card data is reported to involve about 2.97 million people. Some of it reportedly included key payment information such as card numbers and expiration dates. For consumers, that raises concerns beyond a privacy violation and could extend to potential financial harm. A CEO’s responsibility does not disappear because the executive did not personally carry out the intrusion. Decisions on security budgets, staffing, contractor oversight, and whether internal controls and inspections function are management responsibilities. Attacks may be carried out by hackers, but vulnerabilities are created by organizations. The move also sends a message across the financial industry. Nonbank firms such as card companies, insurers and brokerages have been criticized for moving quickly on digital transformation while investing relatively less in security and staffing. Information protection has at times been pushed aside by profitability and marketing competition. Discipline alone, however, will not solve the problem. Penalizing a CEO does not automatically raise security standards. Financial firms need boards to regularly review cyber risk and strengthen the authority and independence of chief information security officers. IT budgets should be treated as investments in trust, not targets for cost cutting. Beyond Cho’s individual case, the episode is a signal to CEOs across South Korea’s financial sector: taking custody of customer data also means taking responsibility for security. The practice of sharing credit for performance in executive meetings while shifting blame for failures to frontline staff should end. Finance depends on trust, and trust begins with safety. The warning to Cho is not only a sanction against one person, but a step toward resetting expectations for executive accountability. CEOs should treat security review reports with the same seriousness as earnings results.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-01 08:24:17

NH NongHyup Bank’s 500 billion won capital raise puts focus on corporate lending strategy NH NongHyup Bank is pursuing a 500 billion won capital increase as it moves to expand corporate finance. The bank aims to build capital in advance to increase corporate lending and narrow the gap with top-tier commercial banks. Strengthening capital while supporting the real economy is a sound direction. The question is whether the move ends as simple balance-sheet expansion or becomes a responsible growth strategy. Debate over “share dilution” misses the point. NongHyup Bank is not listed and is a wholly owned unit of NH Financial Group, so there is no structure in which ordinary investors’ stakes are diluted. The core issue is not persuading shareholders but accountability for how the new capital is used. Capital raising is a means, not an end. What matters is where the money goes and by what standards. A rights offering is not meant to increase risk but to prepare to absorb it. Raising the common equity Tier 1 ratio is a standard step to strengthen loss-absorbing capacity. Expanding corporate lending requires additional capital, and this increase is largely a preemptive buffer tied to that plan. Reading it simply as a signal of aggressive expansion or higher risk is an overreach. What follows after the capital increase is a separate issue. Capital is only the starting line; outcomes depend on the lending strategy that comes next. The bank’s push for “productive finance” is directionally right but difficult to execute. Financing small and midsize firms and advanced industries typically involves greater information gaps and higher risk. The issue is not a simple choice between tightening or loosening screening. Policy-oriented finance is neither blanket risk avoidance nor indiscriminate risk-taking; it requires selecting and spreading risk to fit the purpose. That means the task is not just more lending, but more precise, purpose-driven finance. Screening standards that reflect industry characteristics, risk-sharing structures such as guarantees and participation, and stronger post-loan monitoring must work together. Public-policy goals and commercial banking are not opposites but a matter of balance. If screening is weakened in the name of public interest, bad loans can follow; if the bank becomes overly conservative in the name of profitability, policy goals can be undermined. How that balance is designed will determine whether this capital increase succeeds. The growth approach also matters. NongHyup Bank has said it will expand corporate lending to increase both scale and earnings capacity. But competition in corporate finance is already intense. To gain share in areas dominated by established commercial banks, a late mover is likely to compete on pricing, limits and speed, which can translate into short-term sales pressure. That is where risks emerge. If the bank becomes fixated on a race for size, loan quality can suffer. If it is too cautious, it can lose ground. The need is not to choose “scale or trust,” but to expand while maintaining trust. More important than how much the loan book grows is how sound those assets remain. A bank’s competitiveness ultimately rests on credibility. Financial regulators also have a role. There is no clear reason to restrict capital strengthening itself; preemptive capital building can support financial-system stability. But supervision must be refined so added capital does not translate into unchecked risk-taking. A workable market requires balance between upfront rules and after-the-fact oversight. This capital increase is more than a financial event. It is a statement about what kind of bank NongHyup Bank intends to become. Whether policy-branded expansion becomes a short-term result or a sustainable corporate-finance model will depend on execution. A bank does not only lend money; it lends trust. Capital is the basic strength that supports that trust, and greater capacity brings greater responsibility. The market will be watching whether this move becomes the start of real improvement rather than simple expansion.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-01 08:15:19

Korea Resorts Sell Out for May Holiday as Operators Push On-Site Experiences As the May holiday stretch began on May 1, South Korea’s resort industry reported a surge in demand, with many properties effectively sold out. With one day of leave on May 4, travelers can take up to five days off, and many family travelers have shifted to domestic trips amid a strong exchange rate and sharply higher airline fuel surcharges. Resort operators said they are focusing on programs that make on-site spending feel worthwhile, moving beyond simple lodging toward “all-inclusive”, stay-focused offerings that position the resort itself as the destination. Daemyung Sono Group’s Sono International said its properties were essentially fully booked for the holiday period running from May 1 to May 5. High1 Resort reported a similar trend, with average room reservations topping 90% during the break; its Grand Hotel was effectively at zero vacancy. To hold guests’ attention, operators are rolling out a slate of “stay-focused experiences” designed to keep visitors on property. Sono International, which operates resorts nationwide, is tailoring events by location to extend guests’ stays. At Vivaldi Park in Hongcheon, Gangwon Province — a major holiday draw — the resort is holding a “Family Festival” from May 1 to May 4 across its outdoor areas. The program includes live pop-band performances, a pop-up food truck tied to the entertainment show “Black and White Chef,” and a flea market as part of a garden festa. Experience-based offerings such as park golf at the summit of Maebongsan and a magic show are also scheduled. Sol Beach properties around the country are also offering location-themed programs. Sol Beach Yangyang is planning a dinner barbecue and an outdoor flea market; Sol Beach Samcheok is offering children’s tarot experiences and busking at Santorini Plaza; and Sol Beach Namhae is hosting a yuzu-candle one-day class and an ocean-view yoga class. High1 Resort, operated by Kangwon Land, is emphasizing “cross-generational” programming aimed at both parents and children. A featured event is the “Chick Sports Day” on May 2 at Grand Plaza, with outdoor activities such as arrow curling, a family relay and tail-chasing games designed to bring three generations together. From May 3 to May 5, the resort will run “High1 Wonderbus,” turning the property into a festival setting with performances including a kids’ wonderland and a retro-style concert. Each evening, a signature media show is planned at the casino entrance to extend entertainment into nighttime hours. Kumho Resort said it is leaning on leisure infrastructure at each site — including water parks, park golf and yachting — to differentiate its holiday offerings. Kumho Hwasun Spa Resort will hold a children’s swimming competition and a parent-and-child piggyback race, billed as the “Eobuba Water Operation,” on May 9 and 10 at its outdoor pool as part of a mini-Olympics-style program. Jeju Resort is also running “Happy Bubble Day,” filling an outdoor pool with foam. Kumho Seorak Resort is staging the fourth Seorak Park Golf Family Team Championship, with 14 two-person teams competing against a backdrop of Ulsanbawi, offering resort lodging vouchers among the prizes. Kumho Tongyeong Marina Resort will present “Sunset Yacht Romantic Busking” on weekends in May, featuring live performances by local artists on the water at dusk.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-01 08:12:03

Apple’s iPhone Sales Miss Expectations as Chip Shortage Highlights Supply-Chain Risks Apple posted record revenue for the January-March quarter, but iPhone sales fell short of market expectations because of a semiconductor supply crunch. Apple said revenue rose 17% from a year earlier to $111.18 billion. Still, iPhone revenue came in slightly below forecasts, and CEO Tim Cook said limited flexibility in the chip supply chain constrained sales. The results underscored that even companies with deep pockets and strong procurement networks are not immune to supply disruptions. The warning extends beyond Apple. As artificial intelligence spreads and data center investment accelerates, demand for advanced chips is surging, pushing global manufacturing back into an era in which chips determine output. No matter how strong product planning, marketing or brand power may be, shipment plans can unravel if semiconductors do not arrive on time. The production setbacks the auto industry faced during the pandemic could reappear across smartphones and the broader IT sector. South Korea should not treat the signal as someone else’s problem. The economy relies heavily on semiconductor exports and has grown on the back of global strength in memory chips. But the market is shifting quickly, with new battlegrounds opening at once, including high-bandwidth memory, advanced packaging, AI server chips and foundry competitiveness. If supply-chain instability persists, it could disrupt not only production but also global customers’ ordering strategies and investment plans. Korean companies face two tasks at the same time: expanding capacity and diversifying supply chains. As global demand rises, stable capacity increases and early investment are needed. At the same time, overreliance on a single region, process or partner leaves firms vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and raw-material risks. The U.S.-China technology rivalry, tensions in the Taiwan Strait and logistics instability can quickly become real constraints. Government action also matters. Semiconductors are no longer just a private-sector business but an economic security industry, with hurdles companies cannot solve alone, including power, water, talent, tax policy and site regulations. There is little reason to delay permitting reforms to speed investment, tax support for research and development, and systems to train advanced talent. While companies compete globally, domestic regulation should not hold them back. Companies, too, cannot rely on past formulas. The era when leadership in memory alone guaranteed the future is over. To maintain a technology edge, firms need sustained R&D spending, bold organizational change and strategies tailored to global customers. A supply-chain crisis is a risk, but it can also be a chance for the market to reshuffle. Even a top global company like Apple can be shaken without chips. If South Korea, which counts semiconductors as a core national industry, takes that signal lightly, the cost could be higher. * This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-01 08:10:33

Shin Bong-gil: India Is Korea’s Manufacturing Base, Market and Strategic Partner South Korea’s diplomatic map is shifting. For decades, Seoul operated within a so-called “four-power diplomacy” centered on the United States, China, Japan and Russia — shaped by the peninsula’s division, the U.S.-South Korea alliance, economic dependence on China, historical disputes with Japan and outreach to Russia. But today’s international environment no longer fits that frame. U.S.-China strategic rivalry has become prolonged, supply chains are being recast in security terms, and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have pushed the world deeper into uncertainty. In that turbulence, India is emerging as a new diplomatic, economic and strategic axis. India is the world’s most populous country and a fast-growing economy. It is also a leading “Global South” power that maintains an independent foreign policy rather than aligning fully with either the United States or China. For South Korean companies, it is both a production base and a vast consumer market; for South Korean diplomacy, it can widen Seoul’s room to maneuver among major powers. Shin Bong-gil, a former South Korean ambassador to India, said South Korea should move “beyond four-power diplomacy to five-power diplomacy that includes India.” Shin, a veteran diplomat with nearly 40 years in the field, also served as the first secretary-general of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat for South Korea, China and Japan. He now heads the Korea-India Future Association and argues for expanding the relationship with India. Shin cautioned against viewing India simply as “post-China.” He called India a potential alternative manufacturing base, but said it operates with a distinct political, economic and diplomatic logic. “India is not an easy country,” he said, citing complex regulations, differing state administrations, and challenges in permits and labor. Still, he added: “Next is India,” arguing that difficulty is a reason to prepare more and enter earlier. “This is an age of major turmoil, and India’s presence is growing” Asked how he defines today’s international order, Shin said: “I’m not sure there is order. It’s an order of disorder — I want to call it an age of major turmoil.” He said the liberal international order that has underpinned global stability is in the process of collapsing, while a new order has not yet taken shape. He traced the high point of the U.S.- and Western-led order to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, when political scientist Francis Fukuyama spoke of the “end of history.” Shin said the order began to shake with the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Arab Spring, refugee and migration pressures, and moves after the Trump administration that he said undermined the system the United States had built. “You could say it’s an international order that began with the U.S. and is ending with the U.S.,” he said. On India’s significance, Shin said he recently attended the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi, where about 3,000 political scientists, diplomats and experts from 120 countries gathered. He said Finland’s President Alexander Stubb delivered a keynote arguing that as the Western-led order weakens, the Global South — led by India — will play a larger role. Shin linked the Global South to the Non-Aligned Movement led by figures such as India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, whose core idea was peaceful coexistence. He said the world may be moving toward a multipolar order in which different values and ideologies coexist. “South Korean diplomacy should move beyond four powers to five, including India” Shin said South Korea is sometimes assessed as around fifth or sixth in overall national power when GDP, military strength, population and culture are considered. “It’s not a superpower, but it has reached the position of a major power,” he said. But he said diplomacy has not fully caught up. He cited two reasons: South Korea’s limited room to maneuver because it is surrounded by the four powers, and a foreign policy that has been centered on the United States. “In a way, it has been diplomacy that can only be called dependent,” he said. That is why India matters, he said. A visit to India, he said, is “to do five-power diplomacy.” He also described it as “G3 diplomacy” economically, arguing India is rising fast and is becoming a key partner for economic and investment diplomacy. Shin said India is close to the United States but not a subordinate partner; it competes with China but does not fully sever ties; and it maintains an independent relationship with Russia. Building strong ties with such a country, he said, expands South Korea’s options and strengthens links to the Global South — which he estimated at about 120 countries — providing leverage in relations with the United States, China and Japan. “A presidential trip to India is a relaunch of South Korea-India ties” Shin said he served as ambassador to India during the Moon Jae-in government, when bilateral ties were strong under Seoul’s New Southern Policy and India also sought closer relations. He said later political issues made active diplomacy harder and relations cooled. In that context, he said, President Lee Jae-myung’s visit to India carries the meaning of restarting the relationship. “I want to call it a ‘relaunch,’” he said, likening it to restarting a car’s engine. Shin also pointed to historical symbolism. He said that when he was ambassador, South Korean history was barely mentioned in Indian middle and high school textbooks, while Japan and China each had six pages. He said South Korea later secured six pages, including the story of King Suro and Queen Heo Hwang-ok and an introduction to South Korea’s history and current standing. He said that when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited South Korea, Modi remarked that 10% of South Koreans are “our relatives,” emphasizing the symbolic link through descendants of King Suro and Queen Heo. Shin said such symbolism matters in diplomacy and warned that India, with strong civilizational pride, should not be approached only through market size. “India is a production base, a market and a strategic partner” Shin said India’s role as a production base and market rests on its vast labor force and huge population, conditions he said few countries can match. He called India a strategic partner because it has the scale and capacity to be a new frontier for South Korea, adding that while China has long been viewed as a strategic partner, South Korea is now moving away from China. “Next is India,” he said. For South Korean companies, he cited Hyundai Motor’s initial public offering in India, saying it sold part of its shares to raise funds on the scale of several trillion won. He said LG is in a similar flow. He argued India is not only a place to manufacture for export, but a country where firms can produce locally, sell locally, use local capital markets and pursue technology cooperation with local companies. Comparing India with China and Vietnam, Shin said South Korean firms need to diversify investment destinations. He said geopolitical risks have grown in China, and Vietnam remains an important production base but has limits of scale. India, he said, is difficult but large, with significant potential and strategic meaning, requiring long-term understanding rather than a China-style approach. “‘Post-China’ is hard right now, but true in the medium to long term” Shin said calling India “post-China” makes sense in the medium to long term, citing its population, potential GDP and the possibility of 7% to 8% growth. But he said it is difficult to compare India with China immediately because India still lags in infrastructure such as highways, subways and ports, and in manufacturing competitiveness built by China over decades. He said India’s democratic federal system and diversity can slow decision-making and complicate regulation, but cited strengths including a huge domestic market, English-speaking talent, software capabilities, a young population and Global South leadership. He urged South Korean companies to analyze India by state, city and industry ecosystem rather than as a single market. “India is changing — you can see it at the airport and on the streets” Shin said he has noticed changes on repeated visits, including a cleaner Indira Gandhi International Airport and fewer visible trash piles on the way into New Delhi. He said the G20 summit helped lift India’s capacity, and he cited experts who say cows are disappearing from city roads — a visible sign, he said, that India is changing. He said such changes reflect more than aesthetics: they suggest stronger administrative capacity, rising middle-class expectations and improved ability to host international events. “India is not a country you can read through old images,” he said. “India is not easy — it takes real patience” Shin said India has high entry barriers, with complex and uncertain regulations and a difficult administrative system. He noted India’s federal structure, with central rules and separate regulations across 28 states, and said taxes, permits and labor rules vary by state, making it more complicated than South Korea or China. He said location choices matter because states differ in conditions and governance. “India looks like one market, but in reality it is closer to a country made up of many markets,” he said, adding that the choice of state, partner and relationship with local authorities can determine success. He said companies need a long-term view, arguing quick results in one or two years may be difficult. But he said firms that build trust and brands can be rewarded over time, citing Samsung, LG and Hyundai Motor. “After Samsung, LG and Hyundai, a second India investment boom is needed” Shin said he hopes for a second wave of large-scale South Korean investment in India. He said India’s environment in the 1990s was far tougher, yet Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and Hyundai Motor entered early and are now “household names” in India. He said cooperation could expand in shipbuilding, AI data centers, electronics and infrastructure. He cited a flow in which Samsung Electronics is discussing cooperation on a large AI center with India’s Reliance Group, and said shipbuilding cooperation is also important. He urged South Korea to diversify beyond China and Vietnam and to invest decisively as India’s potential becomes clearer. Shin said summit diplomacy can help by opening doors when business leaders travel with the president and cooperation meetings are held. But he said it should not end as a one-off event, calling for sector-by-sector road maps in areas including shipbuilding, AI, semiconductors, autos, batteries, power grids, infrastructure, defense and cultural content. “Shipbuilding cooperation could create a second Ulsan in India” Shin said shipbuilding is likely to be a key topic in South Korea-India talks. He said companies such as HD Hyundai are working with Indian state governments, with cooperation being pursued with Tamil Nadu and Kerala. He said there is a vision of building a “second Ulsan” shipyard in Tamil Nadu — not simply exporting a factory, but planting a Korean-style shipbuilding ecosystem in India. Shin said the cooperation has strategic value because India needs shipbuilding capacity for maritime security, logistics, defense and energy transport, while South Korea has top-tier shipbuilding technology and production know-how. He said India is strengthening its maritime strategy in the Indian Ocean, including managing sea lanes linking the Middle East, Africa and Southeast Asia. “Getting closer to India means getting closer to the Global South” Shin said India is a representative Global South country, rooted in the Non-Aligned Movement and still pursuing an independent line rather than fully aligning with either the United States or China. He repeated his estimate that the Global South includes about 120 countries and said closer ties with India can broaden South Korea’s support base in international organizations and multilateral forums. “To be a bridge state, you need trust and strength” Shin said a “bridge state” must be trusted by the parties it seeks to connect and must have the strength to stand on its own. He said South Korea must maintain its alliance with the United States while managing economic ties with China, and cooperate with Japan without ignoring historical issues. In that context, he said, India can serve as an additional axis for diplomatic balance, and India’s approach offers lessons for South Korea. “If South Korea gets closer to India, it can slightly widen its diplomatic space when pressured to choose between the U.S. and China,” he said, adding that Global South ties can create new cooperation foundations in multilateral arenas. “The principle of diplomacy is national interest, and its core is peace” Asked what principles should guide South Korean diplomacy amid U.S.-China competition, supply-chain restructuring, AI-driven change and wars in the Middle East, Shin said: “The principle is national interest.” He said national interest includes sovereignty, territorial integrity, citizens’ growth and prosperity, peace and national dignity. He said peace should be the most important concept within national interest. “Diplomacy’s core is how to expand the space for peace,” he said, calling the wars in Ukraine and Iran the result of diplomatic failure. He criticized “armchair warriors” who, he said, promote hard-line positions without solutions and equate that with patriotism, while branding calls for dialogue as appeasement. “That’s extremely dangerous,” he said. “Be a diplomat with a story, not one guided by promotion” Shin said he spent nearly 40 years on the front lines and, after seeing many retired senior diplomats, would tell younger officials not to use career advancement as their compass. He urged them to become “diplomats with a story,” guided by skill and direction, unafraid to go against the mainstream, and able to say at the end of their careers what they did for South Korean diplomacy. Shin’s argument, he said, is not just market analysis but a proposal for South Korea’s next diplomatic direction: expand beyond a four-power framework to include India, treat India as a strategic partner, and approach the relationship as a sustained national strategy rather than a one-time summit event. Shin is a veteran diplomat with nearly 40 years of experience. He served as South Korea’s ambassador to India and as the first secretary-general of the Trilateral Cooperation Secretariat for South Korea, China and Japan. He now leads the Korea-India Future Association and argues that South Korea should expand beyond U.S.-China-Japan-Russia-centered “four-power diplomacy” to “five-power diplomacy” that includes India. He describes India as a production base, a vast consumer market and a strategic partner linking South Korea to the Global South. He says diplomacy should prioritize national interest, with peace at its core, and advises younger diplomats to pursue substance over promotion.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-01 08:09:00

Attorney Na Seung-cheol tapped as civil affairs chief at prime minister’s office Attorney Na Seung-cheol, 49, a 35th class graduate of the Judicial Research and Training Institute, has been tapped to lead the civil affairs office at the Prime Minister’s Secretariat. Cheong Wa Dae said Friday that Na has been nominated for the post and is awaiting presidential approval. He is expected to begin work May 4. Na previously served as president of the Seoul Bar Association and worked as an advisory attorney to Gyeonggi Province. He also served on the defense team in President Lee Jae-myung’s case involving alleged violations of the Public Official Election Act during Lee’s tenure as Gyeonggi governor. Na also represented first lady Kim in connection with the so-called “Hye-gyeong-gung Kim” allegations. His predecessor, Shin Hyun-sung, submitted his resignation, citing support for the June 3 local elections, and was dismissed on April 10.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-01 07:36:17

President Lee Thanks HMM Labor-Management Deal to Move Headquarters to Busan President Lee Jae-myung said the government would provide needed support after HMM’s management and labor agreed to relocate the company’s headquarters to Busan. Lee wrote on X on the afternoon of April 30 that “the government will not spare the necessary support so that HMM can establish itself as a global shipping company.” He thanked both sides for “continuing difficult negotiations,” adding, “Above all, I express my deep gratitude to HMM employees for making a decision for the greater good.” Lee said he hoped the agreement would help strengthen South Korea’s shipping competitiveness and contribute to balanced regional development. He also said he trusted the parties would continue “constructive discussions” and complete the relocation smoothly. HMM’s management and labor signed an agreement that day to move the headquarters to Busan. The relocation is part of Lee’s campaign pledge to foster a “southeastern maritime capital region.” HMM said the scale and timing will be finalized through further labor-management talks.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-01 07:21:17

Calls Grow for Samsung Electronics, Union to Avert Strike as President Voices Concern Samsung Electronics’ labor dispute has escalated to the point that President Lee Jae-myung has voiced concern over the union’s move toward a general strike. It is unusual for a national leader to publicly address or be briefed on a private company’s labor-management conflict, underscoring worries that a walkout at Samsung could ripple beyond an internal dispute and hit the broader economy. Both sides should halt hard-line brinkmanship and move quickly toward a workable solution. Samsung is not an ordinary company. It is a flagship in semiconductors, smartphones and home appliances, with outsized influence on exports, investment, jobs and the stock market. Any production disruption could trigger knock-on damage to suppliers and local economies, parts and equipment makers, and logistics networks. If overseas customers cut orders over supply concerns or shift to competitors, the losses may not be short-lived. The timing adds to the risk. Global competition for semiconductor leadership is intensifying as the spread of artificial intelligence drives demand for advanced memory and foundry services. The United States, Taiwan, China and Japan are also backing their industries with government-level support. In that environment, internal conflict at South Korea’s leading chipmaker would amount to handing rivals an opening. The right to collective action is guaranteed by the Constitution, and the union can legitimately raise demands on wages, bonuses and working conditions. But a general strike should be a last resort. If pressure tactics come first, centered on production disruptions and losses, public support is likely to erode. The larger a company’s impact on the national economy, the heavier the union’s responsibility becomes, along with accountability for the consequences of its actions. Management also bears responsibility. If labor disputes keep recurring, the company should examine whether there has been a lack of trust in compensation systems, poor communication, or accumulated grievances on the shop floor. If performance has improved, it should share results under standards employees can accept and explain decisions in a way that also addresses future investment and job stability. Digging in without dialogue will only worsen the problem. The president’s concern should be read not as political interference but as a warning tied to economic security. Semiconductors are central to South Korea’s exports and a strategic industry. The government should not take sides, but strengthen its role in ensuring negotiations proceed under the law and established principles. It should respond firmly to illegal acts while actively supporting lawful bargaining. If the standoff drags on, the damage will ultimately fall on the broader economy. The union should move away from a power struggle built around the threat of a general strike. The company should present concrete steps to restore employee trust. With the issue now drawing presidential concern, the warning light is already on. What is needed is compromise and responsible decisions, not a showdown.* This article has been translated by AI. 2026-05-01 07:12:19