The Daegu District Court gave the unidentified woman, 18, a four-year sentence Thursday for stabbing her husband to death.
``She was pregnant, and we acknowledge that she used the knife to defend herself. But she stabbed him three times and the wounds showed that she attacked him consciously, so it was a preemptive attack rather than legitimate self-defense,'' the court said.
The woman came to Korea in April of last year to get married. The 38-year-old husband, under the influence of alcohol, attacked her at their home in Daegu in January.
In case you're curious, here's an excerpt from one of the contemporary articles, brought to us by Korea Beat:
“Cambodian people will think a person is rude for touching their heads. We do not know if that was the reason that 18-year old Mrs. Choun (pseudonym) stabbed her husband after marrying him from Cambodia.”
I ran it with the headline "Pay attention to your foreign wife owner's manual."
I'm not going to get into whether it was justified or not. Murder is murder, and besides, a 171-word article doesn't give you much to work with.
But what jumps out at me in stories like this---or when it's the mail-order bride who winds up dead---is the age gap, so telling of what's going on. When will South Korea stop buying young women in order to deal with its gender imbalance? Public relations people can talk about how the Korean Wave is touching the world and giving countries rich and poor a positive image of South Korea, but certainly people in Southeast Asia aren't getting as rosy a picture as hallyu enthusiasts might think. When you add the image of Koreans behaving badly overseas with bullshit like the wife trade, you're not building good relationships with your neighbors. Filling people with visions of palacial apartments, luxurious cars, and an exaggerated sense of filial piety won't do much when their countrywomen are sold to rural Korea, married to men who are too often poor or handicapped or otherwise unmarriable, and abused. These women are often unhappy, divorce rates among these international couples are on the rise, and we sometimes about the husbands trying to hunt down their wives after the women ran back to their home countries. In extreme cases these young women wind up dead. Sure, South Korea is one of the richest countries in the region now, but Korea itself is a great example of how quickly things can change.
Here's an excerpt from a Korea Times editorial from last August:
South Korea has increasingly come under attack for the abuse and exploitation of foreign wives, especially those from Southeast Asian countries. The plight of Vietnamese wives married to Koreans has already invited international criticism over rights abuses and human trafficking. It is heart-wrenching to read frequent stories that Vietnamese spouses were beaten to death or committed suicide ― far from realizing their ``Korean dream.''
What's more worrisome is that such a story does not stop with the ill-fated Vietnamese. The problem is now spreading to Cambodia. The Cambodian government has recently suspended processing all documents for marriages of its citizens with foreigners as a measure to minimize the possibility of human trafficking. You Ay, Cambodia's deputy minister of women's affairs, said April 3 that the suspension was prompted by concerns about exploitation and trafficking amid a surge in the number of Cambodian women marrying South Koreans.
And a Joongang Ilbo column from a while ago named "End the marriage industry":
A country is globally rejected or respected for its policies and behavior towards women. Korea must legislate against the business of buying and selling foreign wives.
The government should immediately crack down on this shameful practice.
At the same time, the government must grant quick citizenship to the foreign wives already living here so that they can have full equal rights under the law.
It is time for Korea to protect its minority citizens.
And while Korea is buying up the young women of Southeast Asia---41% of men in farming and fisheries do it, and one source says 37% of marriages in Jeollanam-do's Hampyeong county were international in 2004---foreign men in relationships with Korean women are still getting shit.
Just so we're clear about where I stand, allow me to quote myself from April:
For what it's worth, I don't object to these sort of marriages out of hand. For people who want to get married but find themselves with few options---or who simply find themselves tired of looking---I don't see anything wrong with finding someone through the internet or going through an agency. We've all tried internet dating, haven't we? (Haven't we?) And, hell, Korea and other Asian countries where this sort of international marriage business is popular have a long---and recent---history with matchmaking services. I'm also not naive enough to believe these women are all innocent victims, who didn't come here for money or the chance to live out the "Korean Dream." It says so right in the damn article. But I find it sick that these foreign women are little more than indentured servants, tied to men twice their age and half their IQ, and charged with repopulating a rural Korea that a generation or two before would have thrown them down a well.
14 comments:
They buy their wives,sell their children. Nice. During the 1988 Olympics, the North Koreans called them the world's biggest baby sellers. This woman should have been given a slap on the wrist and sent back to Cambodia. But I think this is meant to send a clear signal to all the mail order brides that you cant defend yourself against your Korean "owner." If the Korean husband (owner) had taken the knife away and stabbed and killed her, I am sure that he would not have done time. Maybe the sentence for this woman would be shorter if he wasn't the first son.
WTF? There weren't any details. How could the court even assume that THIS was planned? Had they been reading the girl's thoughts all along?
Murder is murder(?), but try being pregnant with raging hormones. Nobody would ever understand what goes in a pregnant woman's (in this case, girl) head. Unless you had been.
And Korea's not a place where psychological issues are addressed. See the suicide rates?
During the 1988 Olympics, the North Koreans called them the world's biggest baby sellers.
That was NBC and Time. And it was more like baby exporters (not a lot of money changed hands for these things).
I'm still wondering what the South will be like after unification. There's a whole supply of young pure blooded Korean women north of the DMZ who will find a southern farmer with plenty of food, water, and electricity very very appealing. The lowest level salaryman is going to seem like a god to these women.
One also then wonders where that's going to leave young North Korean men, who will seem like foolish bumpkins, drunks, losers, too poor, etc.
(A little off topic, when I lived in Seattle, there were plenty of terminally single well paid computer geeks. Seattle was a short drive away from a couple towns that serviced military bases. After 9/11 these towns were largely denuded of their young male soldiers. There was always talk that the Microsofties should head up to Fort Lewis and poach the woman.)
Interesting thoughts, mindmetoo.
One thing that is absolutely imperative when unification happens, I think, is for citizens of the former DPRK to be able to gain ownership to the land they occupy (maybe not for former ruling cadres, though).
Make instant landowners out of the poor and they will have something solid on which to build.
Kushibo, my feeling is the chaebols will treat the North like a low wage vassal state. And the NK public probably won't mind.
If you're a 23 year old NK male and you see the cream of NK womanhood heading south to live in high tech splendor, you're going to sign up quickly to work for a Hyundai factory newly opened in NK. You're going to be happy to take what are shyte wages in the south but a princely wage in the north. You want money because you want a bride.
NK males who head south to find their fortune will be treated like simpletons and bumpkins. They won't know how to use a wet towel machine at Lotteria. They won't understand all the konglish. They'll be laughed at for being confused by the simplest of things SKers take for granted.
mindmetoo wrote:
Kushibo, my feeling is the chaebols will treat the North like a low wage vassal state.
Sure, why not? That's what they did with the South Koreans.
Of course, with a more open economy than pre-1990s ROK, North Korea might also attract Japanese, American, European, even Chinese corporations as well.
And the NK public probably won't mind.
Food on the table? What's not to like?
Over time, what is demanded will change, but so will productivity and skill sets, so it might still be a good place to build a factory. At least for South Koreans.
If you're a 23 year old NK male and you see the cream of NK womanhood heading south to live in high tech splendor, you're going to sign up quickly to work for a Hyundai factory newly opened in NK.
To get a job and feed your family, you're going to sign up quickly.
And how easily will the cream of North Korean womanhood end up in South Korea to live in high-tech splendor. It's dozens or hundreds of kilometers from north to south, not thousands, so word will get back quickly that its plated gold, not solid gold, on them there streets of Seoul.
You're going to be happy to take what are shyte wages in the south but a princely wage in the north. You want money because you want a bride.
And this is exactly why the citizens of the erstwhile DPRK would need to be protected. Granting them land gives them an edge that goes a hella long way for making up what they lack: land is scarce. Granting ownership to occupied space is a tremendous equalizer in this scenario.
NK males who head south to find their fortune will be treated like simpletons and bumpkins.
So give them their land up north so that they won't need to come.
They won't know how to use a wet towel machine at Lotteria.
They'll learn. Learn quickly.
They won't understand all the konglish. They'll be laughed at for being confused by the simplest of things SKers take for granted.
I have no doubts that it won't be a picnic, but I think things will largely work out if the former DPRKers are protected, such as granting them the land they've been occupying.
Ownership society is a tremendous way to harness positive energy. As a homeowner, I have a completely different outlook than I did when I was a "renter." It creates stability, pride of place, and it would give assets to people who are at a serious disadvantage otherwise.
Imagine if a Korean woman killed a Cambodian man in Cambodia. She'd probably get 20 years hard labor. Four years is a cake walk.
The saying in Korea is "Nam Nam Buk Nyuh" or "Men in South and Women in North" as far as the attractiveness of the respective genders is concerned. One more reason for the rural ajosshis in SK to push for unification.
I don't know the details of this case but judging entirely by the reasoning given by the court (itself a fruitless exercise, I know), I'd say it's pretty defective judgment. Self-defense jurisprudence in the US, for example, would not cite the reasons the Korean courts gave. The focus would be on the situation leading to the self-defense scenario, but the actual level of force itself is rarely an issue. You either feel threatened enough to defend yourself or you do not. And as far as stabbing him three times? What, you expect her to stab once and stop? Would that snap the husband out of his drunken rage?
If the Korean husband (owner) had taken the knife away and stabbed and killed her, I am sure that he would not have done time.
Got any evidence for that assertion?
Imagine if a Korean woman killed a Cambodian man in Cambodia. She'd probably get 20 years hard labor.
Got any evidence for that assertion?
Juicy, long before this case ever came to trial or the husband was ever killed or the wife ever felt threatened, Korean jurisprudence regarding self-defense was very different from that of the US, where the latitude for what you can do is so wide that it gives people from other nations pause (e.g., being able to use even deadly force based on the presumption that anyone illegally entering your home could be there to kill you).
In Korea, in a fight, the one who most injures the other is typically the one is legally liable, almost regardless of how it starts. Koreans know this, and others should, too. "He started it and I'm gonna finish it" will land you in jail here.
Similarly, there is a narrow range of how much someone can defend against an attack. It must be proportionate to the attack itself. So, for example, if you shoot and kill someone who is coming at you with a baseball bat, you could go to jail.
What happened with the Cambodian woman would likely have happened with a Korean woman. Possibly the same in reverse, though, depending on the judge, factors could have made it go in either direction.
Perhaps there need to be clearer rules. Maybe they're already clear but we in the K-blogs don't know them. In that case, maybe a handbook in various languages is a good idea.
I don't think most Koreans are inclined to legally expand the types of situations where a woman can legally kill her husband. I think the preferred route would be to expand facilities where someone like the Cambodian woman could find refuge and — as they are trying to do now with the law — she wouldn't lose her visa status if she were to leave an abusive husband.
Kushibo:
>>
Make instant landowners out of the poor and they will have something solid on which to build.
<<
I don t share your optimism. They may have a place to live in, but, property is not worth much if you don t know how to capitalize on it.
Especially within the setting of a free market economy, North Koreans are unlikely to be able to compete. Unless you allow profitable businesses to settle there, sooner or later people are forced to move (to the South) leaving an economic wasteland. To get a taste of it (just on a much more developed level), look to certain regions in East Germany (where the type of landownership restrictions you advocate did not even apply).
umak wrote:
I don t share your optimism. They may have a place to live in, but, property is not worth much if you don t know how to capitalize on it.
That's true, but that only goes toward one of the reasons for granting them their occupied land.
One is, as you mention, being able to capitalize on it. But the other is being able to have home ownership, and that is something one needn't be able to capitalize on in order to enjoy benefits.
If the people up north are not made owners of the homes they occupy, then we have created a permanent tenant class. Make them landowners, and they have built in security.
Some may choose to opt out of that, selling their property in order to get some profit. Some may end up making some decent money, others may end up selling for far too low.
Public areas, though, should perhaps be in the hands of the local citizens, or the profits of selling should go back to the local governments and be approved by local citizens. The prospect of cheap land for factories or stores could improve the lives of the people there, but I'd have to see how that has played out in other areas. That's really not the core of what I'm proposing anyway.
Right now, if someone in the DPRK is living on a farm or in a house such that everyone around there recognizes that as his/her house and his/her farm, it is actually the property of the state. It would be cruel and destructive to take that away from these already disadvantaged people when unification comes. They would become tenants and forced to pay anew for something they didn't have to before. All their efforts to save money will go to rent and the entrepreneurial spirit of some in that region will be snuffed out because there will be no capital.
All I'm saying is let them have their land. The optimist in me says that this will make things better for them, but even if I'm talking to a pessimist, I would say that will prevent things from getting worse.
I should add, umak, that I'm not all that optimistic. I'm only trying to find workable solutions to things that would be foreseeable problems.
North Koreans will be better off if they have a good life anchored in North Korea instead of flooding south. What we can do to facilitate that should be done.
Post a Comment