[Viewpoint] Compliance Committee’s Recommendation Is a Warning to Power

The fate of the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI), which is changing its name today to the Korea Economic Association, was shaken by the 2015 "private meeting with seven company chairmen" incident. Although the history of collusion between politics and business in this land is long, the meetings held over two days on July 24 (Hyundai Motor, CJ, SK) and July 25 (Samsung, LG, Hanwha, Hanjin) between President Park Geun-hye and the chairmen of major corporations symbolically and concisely demonstrated how capital and power collude in language, and how economic organizations function in the process.

Since the entire incident was revealed in detail during the trial from start to finish, a detailed description is omitted here. The core issue is how to define the roles played by the three pillars: power, capital, and organization. Undoubtedly, the main actor and perpetrator was the power, namely the Park Geun-hye Blue House. The companies were victims who were deceived and extorted, and the broker who mediated this was the FKI.

There may be objections to this characterization depending on perspective. However, the journalist’s intention is not to defend the companies by playing the victim. Since it is clear that companies participated in the crime by failing to reject the covert proposals of political power and expected to benefit from it, they must pay the price. Nevertheless, the emphasis is on the unchanging fact that the main culprit who provoked the illegal dealings by exploiting the companies’ vulnerabilities was the power.

In this regard, it is necessary to carefully consider the recommendation statement announced by Samsung’s Compliance Committee on the 18th. The Compliance Committee recommended that Samsung withdraw from the FKI if there is collusion between politics and business within the organization. They added, "We cannot be confident that the FKI can completely sever the ties of collusion between politics and business."

The Compliance Committee’s condition was not presented to Samsung, the entity it is supposed to monitor. This is based on the recognition that the collusion between politics and business in this era is much more likely to sprout from political power, which regards companies as mere tools to be mobilized as needed, rather than from the companies’ own will. The Compliance Committee is also well aware that the FKI, which plays the role of broker, is not in a leading position to sever the ties of collusion. Ultimately, it is reasonable to broadly interpret the Compliance Committee’s warning as expressing doubt whether political power?not companies or economic organizations?can shake off the temptation of collusion between politics and business.

"The FKI’s vast overseas network advantage is irreplaceable, and helping companies through this is the reason for the FKI’s existence," said Acting Chairman Kim Byung-joon. Companies that agree with this can utilize the organization, and those who oppose it can simply choose not to join. This is an area of free business activity and is not so critical as to require decisions made while watching public opinion or political power.

The temptation to interfere in the management of private companies and the practice of pressuring them to cooperate with the regime by using investigative agencies have not disappeared even after the tragedy of presidential impeachment. Severing the ties of collusion between politics and business will not automatically happen just because the FKI includes a pledge in its reform plan to "firmly reject unfair pressure from political and administrative powers."

We must remember today, as the FKI steps back into the pages of history, the lesson that this is inevitably impossible without an awakened civic consciousness and, above all, without power itself engaging in painful self-reflection and resolute self-renewal.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.