September 18^th 2016

KBS News

By Im Jongbin

Video at link

Damage to historically significant buildings

The earthquake made tiles come off the roof, which are now scattered here and there. The earthquake occurred six days ago now, but recovery is far from complete. Temporary tents have been erected [around the damaged buildings] to prevent water leaking into them.

Ee Chunhee (resident of Sajeong-dong in Gyeongju) said “natural disasters can’t be helped, but that fact that we have to make repairs yet again makes me worry about the future [because of the cost involved].” Immediately after the earthquake, the number of cultural properties which have been damaged increased from 23 cases to 60 cases. There are around 300 plastic tents covering varying public facilities [across the city], but only around half of them have first aid facilities. At the epicenter of the quake on the 14^th damage injured anything from 29 to 48 people. As a result the government has authorised a special emergency grant of ‎₩4 billion to be sent to affected areas tomorrow to support emergency recovery. The disaster relief fund payments can be disbursed promptly from tomorrow as the [official] investigation into the incident is set to wrap up.

Analysis: while the nuclear diplomacy situation on the Korean peninsula remains extremely tense and garners the lion’s share of international media coverage, the earthquake which occurred in Gyeongju in North Gyeongsang province this week is still high on the domestic news agenda. Gyeongju is a site of enormous cultural and historic significance, where many houses are built in the traditional hanok style, and there are numerous museums housing extremely valuable artefacts. Koreans were extremely concerned about the earthquake as the country has been relatively tectonically stable in recent years, and the fact that the historical centre of Gyeongju was at its epicenter added significantly to their worries.

08.09.2016

Yeonhap News/Huffington Post Korea

The number of households where people say “I live alone” has been increasing sharply. The average number of people residing in each household has reduced, attributable to a growing tendency for family members to separate [across generations].

School textbooks traditionally showed families being composed of a grandfather and grandmother, two children and two parents; households composed of one, two or three people were rarely portrayed. But if one looks at the 2015 Housing and Population Status survey which was released by the National Statistics Office yesterday one can see that last year, the average Korean household size has decreased by 0.15 people from 2010. The average 2015 household is composed of 2.53 people while in 2010 the figure was 2.68 people. In 1990 that figure was 3.77 people; by 2005 it had fallen to 2.88 people, the first time the figure fell below an average of 3 persons per household.

Thus in 2015 single-person households made up 27.2% of the Korean population, an increase of 3.3% from the single-person household figure in 2010. At the other end of the scale households consisting of 5 people or more made up 1.2 million, or 6.4%, of the total population of Korea. The rate of single-person households has grown very quickly from the 1990 rate of 9.0% of the country’s total population. Up until 1990, the vast majority of the Korean population, nearly 60%, lived in 4- and 5-person households.

The main type of household in the country is changing.

The traditional extended Korean family is becoming less common.

The area with the highest rate of single-person households is Kangwon province, in the country’s north-east, where 31.2% of households are made up of one person. Incheon comes in second, with 23.3% of households being single-occupant. People in their 30s make up the largest single group of single-person households by age, with 18.3% of the total, representing 950,000 people, while people in their 70s (17.5%/910,000) and 20s (17.0%/880,000) come in at second and third place. The gender split between male and female is very even; 49.8% of single-person households are male, 50.2% female. Registration Census Director Heo Bongchae described the results as showing that “many of the single-person households are composed of economically active females; naturally, this figure will continue to grow. Students also account for a lot of the growth in one-person households.”

Analysis: While this rather dry recap of the survey’s findings could certainly have done with some colour, it illustrates the growing problem facing mature Asian and western societies: aging, atomised populations. The particularly competitive nature of life in Korea, where there are many social and economic expectations attached to marriage and family life, serves to exacerbate this trend. As the spokesman from the National Statistics Office points out, increased female participation in the labour market has hastened the rise of single-person households in Korea. Women no longer have to rely on a a male for financial independence, and may thus find themselves delaying marriage, either because they are content to wait until they meet a partner who fulfils their expectations or because they are unwilling to shoulder the still-onerous housework and childcare obligations which many working mothers and wives are expected to shoulder. (In fairness to married Korean men, they are often automatically expected to work much longer hours than women.) Korea – and other rich countries – will have to fully engage with this reality sooner rather than later.

03.09.2016

KBS News

By Ee Seok-ho

During their summit meeting Korea’s President Bak Geun-hye and her Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin agreed that strong tactical communication was needed between the two countries to effectively deal with the North Korean nuclear issue, and that North Korea could not be allowed to become a fully-fledged nucelar power. Speaking at the Eastern Economic Forum’s opening held at Vladivostok’s Eastern Federal Region University, President Bak reiterated the need for “strong tactical communication” between the countries to tackle North Korea’s nuclear threat.

At a joint conference after the summit President Bak emphasised that “Korea and Russia are aiming for increased co-operation with each other, in order to solve the threat to security in our region posed by North Korea’s nuclear missile ambitions”. At the same press conference President Putin revealed that his preference was for no usage of nuclear weapons and that “neither of our countries will tolerate North Korea becoming a nuclear power”.

The matter of placement of THAAD launchers on the Korean peninsula was not discussed at the conference,* although it is believed that President Putin understands the importance of their usage.

*THAAD launchers would form part of an overt anti-nuclear defence system as deployed by the US and South Korea – their deployment is a sensitive issue as China and Russia don’t want to see a US-operated anti-missile system so close to their borders.

President Putin said “easing the nuclear situation on the Korean peninsula needs to be done with reference to military and political concerns” and “we should try to reduce the level of military confrontation”. It is believed that this statement may have been a reference to the THAAD issue [ie Putin is calling for THAADs not to be deployed].

President Putin “exchanged opinions on economic integration prospects and key issues in East Asia,” the Bureau for Economic Co-operation told CNN. Ways to actively attract foreign firms to Russia were also discussed.

Putin said “the Republic of Korea is an important and promising partner of Russia in this region, and we have maintained an active political dialogue between the two countries. Our traditionally close economic relations have culminated in a mutually beneficial nature.”

Analysis: This is an unusually strong statement from Vladimir Putin: his language (at least the Korean version as reported) is completely unequivocal. North Korea will not be allowed to become a nuclear power. Observers may wonder whether North Korea is already a nuclear power, and may consider that Pyeongyang’s potential attack capabilities are much more damaging for South Korea than Russia. But Bak Geun-hye’s government must be in accord with Russia to stand behind such a statement. The question is, of course, what happens when and if such strong rhetoric is put to the test. Putin and Bak are probably not the only people hoping we never find out.