Content


Introduce


The Problems of the Resident Registration System


New Words Dictionary


A Country Where Only Lowly Men Run Amok


Third-Rate Nation


Complete Idiots


Descendants of Heungseon Daewongun


Conclusion






Introduce: If you’re someone stuck in the rigid notion that a book must avoid swearing or emotional language, step aside. What the hell is wrong with cursing when the situation calls for condemnation? This book cannot be read without it. The author will lay bare his unfiltered contempt for Joseon people, just as a historian records facts. How could some foolish, self-contradictory nitwit who claims “emotional expression is unacceptable” possibly engage in any rational thought? If you let your emotions sway you, you’ll never grasp the core of this book. Do you intend to lecture on someone else’s expression of rage while failing to act when faced with injustice yourself? Such a person is either a fool or a repulsive hypocrite—someone who wants to live as a slave, robbed of rights, yet incapable of feeling anger.



The Problems of the Resident Registration System


South Korea’s resident registration system is a representative population management framework designed by the state to systematically oversee its citizens and provide administrative services efficiently. Under this system, each individual is assigned a unique resident registration number, and essential personal information—such as address and family relationships—is registered and managed. This framework has served as a critical infrastructure underpinning the administrative machinery across society, including taxation, military service, elections, welfare, education, and finance. Particularly during the 1960s and 1970s, as the state focused on national reconstruction and enhancing administrative efficiency, a centralized identity verification system was firmly established.

Accompanying this was the mandatory fingerprinting system, which required the collection and storage of fingerprints from all citizens upon reaching a certain age. In South Korea, the government has historically collected fingerprints from all ten fingers during the issuance of the resident registration card, with the stated purpose of enabling faster and more accurate criminal investigations and identity verification. The historical context of this measure is tied to heightened security concerns following the 1968 armed infiltration incident known as the Kim Shin-jo incident, after which fingerprint registration was expanded under the pretext of identifying spies and strengthening public security. Measures introduced and expanded under these exceptional security circumstances have persisted to the present day.

By contrast, in many other countries, mandatory fingerprint collection from all citizens is relatively rare. For example, some countries collect fingerprints only from felony offenders or individuals convicted of certain crimes, or limit biometric data collection to specific administrative purposes, such as welfare eligibility. Comprehensive fingerprinting of the general population carries significant potential for privacy violations and human rights concerns. Because of these differences, South Korea’s system is frequently cited as an unusual case in an international context.

The resident registration number itself also encodes information such as the individual’s date of birth, gender, and regional origin, leading to ongoing concerns that misuse could result in serious breaches of personal privacy.



New Words Dictionary



Based on the Framework Act on the Korean Language, any attempt by state institutions to intervene in an individual’s language use or steer it in a particular direction raises serious concerns. Language is not merely a tool for communication; it is a core element that shapes personal thinking, values, and identity, and it is closely connected to the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. When the state establishes norms in this domain and requires compliance on a legal basis, regardless of its intentions, it carries a high risk of constraining individuals’ autonomous choices in language.

Of course, it cannot be entirely denied that establishing certain language standards for administrative efficiency or document uniformity has a legitimate purpose. However, when such standards extend beyond mere administrative convenience to exert normative influence on the broader society’s language use, they effectively create a structure in which state power intrudes upon everyday linguistic life. Language naturally evolves and develops through the voluntary usage and interaction of its speakers; it is not something determined unilaterally and imposed from above.

Here, the distinction from dictionary-publishing institutions like the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster is clear. These entities are not state organs, nor do they exercise legal enforcement. Their role is to observe, analyze, record, and organize actual language use. In other words, they do not “instruct” or “compel” language usage; they reflect the existing reality of language. Dictionaries are products of linguistic reality, not legal norms that command it.

In contrast, when a state institution formulates language policies based on law and applies them to public agencies, educational institutions, and state-run media, the influence goes far beyond mere recommendation. When institutional authority and administrative power converge, such standards are likely to function as de facto mandatory rules. This is qualitatively different from the authority of private dictionaries and represents a structural intrusion of state power into the cultural sphere.

In a democratic society, the state has the obligation to maximize the protection of individual thought and expression. Language, as the external medium of thought, demands careful consideration in any regulation or control. Expanding language standardization under the pretext of public interest risks suppressing diversity, creativity, and regional or social specificity. Ultimately, language is not the property of the state but a social asset formed and maintained through the autonomous practices of individual citizens. Therefore, when state institutions seek to exert direct or indirect influence on linguistic life based on law, the scope and limits of such authority must be strictly defined, ensuring that individuals’ freedom of language choice is not fundamentally infringed.




A Country Where Only Lowly Men Run Amok



When choosing a state-related profession, such as a civil servant, the number and scope of documents required can be excessively broad. Applicants are typically asked to submit at least ten different documents, including identification cards, family relation certificates, academic trans, and professional licenses. As previously noted, much of this information is already accessible to the state, yet it is common for individuals to be compelled to provide documents that have no direct relevance to their actual work.

These procedures go beyond mere verification, effectively forcing individuals to disclose all their social, familial, and educational information to the state. The problem is compounded by the fact that the regulations and standards applied in this process are often dictated by internal regulations rather than formal legal authority. In other words, rules established within government agencies can, in practice, take on the force of law without explicit statutory or constitutional basis.

Under such a system, the scope and format of required documentation can be arbitrarily determined, leaving individuals with virtually no power to refuse or negotiate the requests. Even in the absence of a need for legal evidence, internal regulations impose binding obligations on individuals. Fundamentally, this contravenes the principle of the rule of law. In a democratic society, law should serve as the supreme standard for all administrative procedures and governance, with internal regulations functioning only within the bounds of that law.

In practice, however, internal rules within government agencies often restrict personal rights and demand excessive disclosure of private information without legal justification. This poses a significant risk to individual freedoms and rights, particularly the protection of privacy and freedom of expression and action. Consequently, the excessive documentation requirements and the primacy of internal regulations when pursuing careers as civil servants or in other state-related positions represent more than administrative inconvenience—they constitute a structural issue threatening individual rights and legal certainty.

Over the long term, such practices erode trust between the state and its citizens, and the prevailing prioritization of internal regulations over law must be thoroughly reassessed.





Third-Rate Nation





Compared to the United States and China, South Korea’s economy is not only relatively smaller in scale but has also been experiencing sluggish growth in recent years. The United States, as the world’s largest economy, wields substantial influence across finance, industry, and technology, while China, with its vast population and manufacturing base, has reinforced its presence in the global economy through rapid growth.

By comparison, South Korea’s gross domestic product (GDP) is markedly lower than that of these two countries, and its growth rate has shown a consistent downward trend. Low economic growth is more than a mere numerical concern; it directly affects national competitiveness, the development of future industries, and the vitality of the labor market. A slowdown in growth can translate into decreased investment, rising youth unemployment, and widening income inequality, highlighting that the effectiveness of national policies and strategic decisions may not be fully translating into economic outcomes.



Complete Idiots





In modern society, the near absence of individuals who think and judge for themselves has become a serious concern. Many people tend to accept the statements of celebrities, fleeting trends, or the opinions of those around them uncritically, rather than reasoning based on their own experience and logic. For instance, there are frequent cases where people insist that Let It Go is a “classic” or place greater trust in the words of friends or familiar figures over scientifically or officially validated guidance. This reflects a distortion of thought in which emotional affinity and social imitation take precedence over scientific verification and rational judgment.

The problem becomes even more acute when such a mindset intersects with structural authority within states or organizations. In hierarchical institutions like the military, for example, even when legal and scientific standards—such as epidemic control laws—exist, there is a pervasive notion that one must follow superiors’ orders unquestioningly, disregarding personal judgment or legal basis. In some cases, even restrictions on personal card use or basic rights are accepted without doubt, simply because higher orders are considered paramount. This attitude starkly illustrates the absence of logical reasoning.

Some individuals are prone to accept claims that are clearly false or logically flawed solely because of an authority figure’s statement or social pressure. It is no different from believing that 1 + 1 = 3 simply because social authority or collective belief dictates it, despite the undeniable truth that 1 + 1 = 2. This phenomenon exemplifies a society in which rational thought and critical judgment are lacking, and decisions are guided instead by authority, trends, and personal connections.

Ultimately, a society that lacks the capacity for independent thinking and verification is highly vulnerable when misinformation and authoritarian directives intersect. This is not merely a problem of individual ignorance; it directly reflects institutional and cultural structures that suppress cognitive autonomy. Without social and educational mechanisms that empower individuals to act according to their own judgment and rational standards, this deficiency in independent thought is likely to persist.




Descendants of Heungseon Daewongun


The development of global digital services provides essential convenience and efficiency in modern society. Google Maps, for instance, offers detailed maps and real-time traffic information, radically simplifying navigation and daily planning, while Uber enhances personal mobility and transforms transportation systems. Similarly, PayPal and Apple Pay provide secure and convenient payment options, and Microsoft Office has become an indispensable tool for maximizing workplace productivity. By offering globally shared document standards and compatibility, these services play a critical role in both work and learning environments.

Despite the excellence and convenience these global services provide, access to some of them in South Korea is restricted or less seamless. Certain payment services or platforms are limited due to domestic regulations or policy reasons, and in document creation and sharing, the mandatory use of Hangul files sometimes prevents full utilization of international standards. These access limitations go beyond mere inconvenience—they create structural disadvantages that may hinder South Korea in global economic and information exchanges.

In an era where the digital economy and work environments are increasingly interconnected across borders, restrictions on access in a specific country can directly impact national competitiveness. If Korean users cannot enjoy the same efficiency and experience on global platforms and services as users elsewhere, this issue is not merely a policy concern—it represents a serious deficiency in terms of citizens’ rights and international competitiveness.

In conclusion, while global services such as Google Maps, Uber, PayPal, Apple Pay, and Microsoft Office clearly offer superior functionality and convenience, limiting access to them in South Korea without reasonable justification undermines the efficiency of individuals and businesses and constrains participation in the digital economy, ultimately impeding the country’s ability to compete on an international scale.


Conclusion


South Korea currently leads the world in brain drain. The country’s brightest minds—skilled professionals, innovative researchers, and ambitious young talent—are leaving in record numbers, seeking opportunities, recognition, and freedoms abroad that are increasingly limited at home. If you want your ideas to flourish, your work to be valued, or simply your potential to be realized without bureaucratic or structural constraints, the message is clear: go global.

Do not wait for local systems to catch up. Don’t rely on outdated policies, restrictive hierarchies, or cultural pressures that stifle creativity and initiative. In a nation where talent is abundant but opportunities are constrained, the safest route to growth, innovation, and personal freedom may very well be beyond its borders.

In short, for those unwilling to compromise on ambition, for those who refuse to let systemic obstacles define their path, leaving South Korea is not just an option—it is a strategic move for survival and success in today’s interconnected world.