세계적으로 유명한 경제전문지인 영국 '파이낸셜타임즈'는
3월 27일자 논평에서
'Korea's Bulldozer must clean up the chaebol'
(한국의 불도저는 재벌을 밀어버려야 한다) 라는 제목의 칼럼을 실었습니다.
파이낸셜타임즈의 'korea'검색결과 나온 기사
파이낸셜타임즈는 이 기사에서 일부 재벌 기업들이 한국 시장을 왜곡시키고 있다며 “이명박 대통령이 국익을 위해 대담한 조처를 외면해선 안 될 것”이라고 강조했습니다.
경제 전반을 장악한 재벌 기업들이 구시대적 지배구조를 유지한 채, 창조성보다는 맹목적인 충성심을 부추기며 오히려 성장에 걸림돌이 되고 있다고 지적합니다.
그 예로 재벌 기업들의 강압적인 납품단가 인하와 지적재산권 침해에 대한 중소기업의 불만 ,정몽구 현대차그룹 회장 등 일부 재벌 총수들이 경제논리로 상식에 어긋난 미미한 형량을 선고받은 점 등을 들었습니다.
파이낸셜타임즈 인터넷판
재벌의 이런 부정적 측면으로 일부 회사와 소수 가문의 과도한 지배력에 염증을 느낀 한국인들 사이에서, 재벌의 구태를 개혁해야 한다는 목소리가 확산되고 있다고 신문은 전했습니다.
하지만 이 대통령이 금산분리를 완화하고, 일반인과 재벌 총수에게 다른 법률적 잣대를 적용하는 등 재벌 친화적인 정책을 계속 유지할 것으로 전망했습니다.
신문은 비자금 의혹으로 검찰 수사를 받는 삼성이 처벌받지는 않을 것이 거의 확실시된다면서도, 비자금 폭로와 수사가 재벌 기업들이 스스로 구태를 청산하도록 하는 계기는 될 수 있을 것으로 내다봤다. (한겨레에서 발췌)
우리나라 1,2,3등 한다는 조선,중앙,동아일보는 삼성수사에 꿀먹은 벙어리마냥 앉아서 매일 헛소리 하고 있는데, 정작 멀리 지구 반대편에 있는 파이낸셜타임즈의 기자는 한국민의 민심과 한국사회를 이렇게 정확하게 간파하고 있다는 사실이 놀랍기만 합니다.
어제 파이낸셜타임즈에 이 기사가 실렸는데 오늘 뉴스를 보니 '공정위'에서 재벌에 대한 규제를 대폭 푼다고 합니다...이명박정부의 '비즈니스 프렌들리' 전략차원에서...말이죠...
The early evidence suggests Mr Lee will remain true to his chaebol roots. He is already preparing to bring down the wall between finance and industry, a restriction that helped the banking sector to stave off collapse during the Asian financial crisis. SMEs - which employ 80 per cent of South Korea's working population - fear that such a move will turn banks into chaebol treasuries, at their expense. Mr Lee also seems quite comfortable with the continuation of two legal systems in South Korea: one for the normal person and one for tycoons. Last year, Chung Mong-koo, chairman of Hyundai Motor, had his conviction for embezzling $100m from the company upheld but the sentence quashed, with the judge saying the country needed him back at Hyundai's helm. The chairman of Hanwha enjoyed the same outcome after he was found guilty of assaulting some young men with an iron bar.
하루만에 '이명박 대통령이 재벌친화적 정책을 유지 할것이다' 라는 기사내용을 증명해버렸습니다. 역시 파이낸셜타임즈의 명성이 괜한게 아니군요!
<<파이낸셜타임즈 사설본문>>
Korea's Bulldozer must clean up the chaebol
By Anna Fifield
Published: March 27 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 27 2008 02:00
In South Korea, you can be born in a Samsung hospital and end up in a Samsung mortuary.
Koreans say this to illustrate how ubiquitous the chaebol conglomerates are in their daily lives. From home appliances and insurance to apartment towers and baseball, Samsung, the biggest chaebol , has almost every area of life covered.
But, increasingly, such jokes are changing from metaphors for South Korea's rapid industrialisation to half-bitter sneers about the control that a few companies - or, more to the point, a few families - exert in Asia's third-largest economy.
Navigating such feelings will be a big test for Lee Myung-bak, who last month became the country's first chief executive president and looks set to consolidate his power in the national assembly elections next month. Mr Lee won a landslide victory precisely because he is a chaebol man. He pledged to overhaul South Korea's economy just as he transformed Hyundai Construction in the 1970s, vowing to lift the country's growth potential to 7 per cent.
But therein lies the dilemma. The chaebol , once the engine of prosperity, are increasingly putting the brakes on growth. With their sprawling empires that enable them to control vast swaths of the economy, anachronistic governance structures and preference for employee loyalty over creativity, these powerful business groups remain firmly rooted in Korea's past.
During the past three years, heads of small and medium-sized enterprises have told me how they are beholden to the chaebol , which abuse their dominance to force down prices. Entrepreneurs complain of their ideas being stolen after making pitches.
The implication is that the chaebol are distorting the market. The question is whether Mr Lee, in his quest foreconomic development, will encourage the chaebol to reform and thereby bring about structural improvements to the economy. Or will he simply encourage them to invest and expand to boost growth in the five years of his presidency?
The new president told the Financial Times last weekend that the fitness of such men to run companies should be decided by shareholders.
Shareholder activists have a poor record in South Korea: take the valiant but unsuccessful efforts by RiskMetrics, the investment adviser, to have Mr Chung's reappointment at Hyundai blocked this month. But there is reason to think the chaebol can be persuaded to modernise. One example is the SK conglomerate. In 2004 its oil refining arm, SK Corp, came under attack from Dubai-based Sovereign Asset Management, which was unhappy about Chey Tae-won, the group's chairman, continuing to run the business after being convicted of a $1.2bn accounting fraud within the group.
Sovereign failed in its bid to oust Mr Chey and soon exited South Korea (with a hefty profit). But three years on, SK Corp set up a holding company and said it would start eliminating cross-shareholdings, both significant steps towards greater transparency.
Foreign "vultures" - as such funds are popularly called - have managed to effect this small amount of change, but now South Koreans are also beginning to agitate. Although the public remains nervous that change at the chaebol could unsettle the economy, there is increasing unhappiness with the "owner" families' vested interests.
This is coming to a head with the investigation into allegations that Samsung, the $150bn empire, used a network of slush funds to bribe officials for business favours and to pave the way for Lee Kun-hee, its chairman, to pass management control to his son. There will almost certainly be no punitive outcome for Samsung - which strenuously denies the charges - but the case is still noteworthy.
First, there was the emergence of a whistleblower, an unheard-of phenomenon in South Korea. Second, unlike in the past when the preference was for growth over justice, an increasing number of citizens are viewing this investigation into Samsung as a necessary evil.
"Samsung can't exist above the law," wrote blogger "cuzim" in one of the numerous anti-Samsung postings on the egloos website. "Korea should take this opportunity to establish a clean corporate culture."
Even without substantial findings from the Samsung investigation, the prevalence of such feelings could encourage all the chaebol to clean up their act. If Mr Lee is serious about taking South Korea's economy to the next level, he should not shy away from taking a bold stand that is in the country's best interests. He was not called "The Bulldozer" during his days at Hyundai for nothing.
anna.fifield@ft.com
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
