(Slush spilling out from the damaged West Atlas Oil Rig) (Image by Chris Twomey via Wikipedia)

“Sorry” was the hardest word for Elton John, according to his 1976 classic hit.

It also seems to be a pretty difficult word for Jose Martins, Chief Executive Officer of PTTEP Australasia, a subsidiary of Thai oil exploration company PTT Exploration and Production Company Limited.

Mr. Martins’ refusal to apologize (refer article) for what is believed to be Australia’s third-worst oil disaster – the result of a leakage from one of the company’s oil rig’s off the north coast of Western Australia, is simply inexcusable and pathetic.

 
An environmental catastrophe
The debacle occurred at the site of the West Atlas oil rig, an offshore oil rig which is located in the Timor Sea about 200km off the north west coast of Australia, which is operated by PTTEP Australasia.

As a result of a leakage from the rig, massive amounts of oil began spilling into the sea on August 21. This continued over the course of a ten week period until the company was able to plug the leak by pumping mud into a relief well which was set up for the purpose of intercepting the leaking well (refer article).

Environmental groups say the impact of the spill, which occurred within what is considered to be a key migration route for whales and humpback turtles, could be catastrophic, and the company has acknowledged that it could take as long as seven years to work through the full environmental impact (refer article).

[Along with whales and turtles, many other species, such as spinner dolphins, sooty terns, spotted sea snakes have been observed swimming in the resulting slick in the nearby area.

Biologists have also raised serious concerns about the impact upon birds, marine invertebrates, algae coral and marine algae in the region from exposure to the toxic effects of the leak (refer article)]

 
“We regret it – but we won’t say sorry
Asked whether or not the company was prepared to apologize, PTTEP Australia’s Martins refused (refer article). Instead, Martins simply stated that “We regret what’s happened,” and that “the rest will have to come out in the inquiry (see below).”

Pathetic.

Mere expressions of regret are appropriate when we are talking about overcharging of customers, shipments of incorrect merchandise or a publicity stunt gone wrong. But they simply do not cut it in cases like this when we are talking about years of serious environmental damage resulting from a nation’s third largest spill on record. Only full and frank apologies are adequate in such cases.

(The inquiry to which Martin refers has been set up by the Australian government to investigate the cause of the spill. The company has also set up it’s own internal inquiry)

 
Genuine legal concerns …
It is somewhat understandable that PTTEP would not be keen to say a great deal prior to the outcome of the inquiry – lest anything said now backfire later in legal proceedings.

And in that regard, one would imagine that they would have plenty to worry about. Nearby tiny island nation of East Timor is making noises about possible compensation and there are fears about effects within Indonesian waters as well (refer article).There are plenty of areas where litigation could arise over the course of the coming years and the company is understandably coy about making any form of statement which could aid or encourage any litigation efforts.

(More, in a later post, about the need to allow companies to give proper apologies without fear of adverse legal ramifications from any apology given)

 
.. but surely an apology will be needed anyway
But that is no excuse to delay an apology – not least because a full and proper apology will surely be warranted irrespective of the inquiry outcome.

True, we don’t yet know whether or not this incident was the simply the result of an unavoidable accident or whether negligence was a contributing factor.

But this shouldn’t matter – at least not as far as the issue of an apology is concerned. Let’s look at what we do know for certain:

(1) Beyond doubt – the spillage resulted from leakage from a rig operated by PTTEP
(2) Beyond doubt – the environmental damage is serious and long term.
(3) There are no serious suggestions sabotage or interference from any external party whatsoever.

These facts are not in dispute, and are surely sufficient to warrant a full and frank apology even if the outcome of the inquiry concludes that the company was not negligent.

Delaying tactics on the part of the company in this regard represent extremely poor conduct.

Elton may have found ‘sorry’ a little difficult, but neither the Australian people or people from affected surrounding nations deserve anything less than a full apology from PTTEP.

Nevertheless, the cancellation of her contract with Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. highlights an interesting issue – is it ethical to sack models on the basis of weight?

I am in two minds on this. On one hand, the sacking of anyone based around body-shape considerations does raise distirbing issues. Then again, models are hired specifically for their beauty and it would not be reasonable to expect clothing man manufacturers or anyone else to continue to employ those who are not able to maintain their good looks.

(Luxury lifestyle firm Ralph Lauren recently terminated Hamilton’s contract she had been with the company for six years. Hamilton claims to have been told that she was sacked because she was ‘too fat.’ Ralph Lauren claims that the dismissal related not to her appearance but rather to an inability on her part to meet her obligations under her contract)

 
Beauty – an occupational requirement
In most professions, people are employed on the basis of their ability to perform a specific function – as opposed to how handsome/beautiful they may or may not be (though good looks are an indisputable advantages). Any termination of their employment for reasons other than a lack of ability to adequately perform their function would be completely unfair.

But modeling is different. Models are hired specifically because of their beauty. Physical attractiveness is an occupational requirement, and it would not be reasonable to expect clothing manufacturers or any other firms to continue to use the services of individuals who are not able to maintain their good looks.

(That said, I would certainly question any assumption which says that models who are not super-slim cannot be physically attractive (see below).

Also, please note that my comments do not relate to Hamilton in particular in any way – these are general comments only)

 
Disturbing consequences
That said, the practice of firing models based on weight does raise serious concerns:

 
• Health concerns for the models themselves.

If the practice of sacking models for being ‘too fat’ becomes commonplace, then fear of this occurring may feel pressure to adopt drastic measures relating to weight control and diet – measures which may be seriously detrimental to their health over the longer term.

 
• Reinforcing negative stereotypes.

At a broader level, such a practice also serves to reinforce stereotypes which are not necessarily desirable.

Women should be encouraged to aim for a healthy weight achieved by sensible patterns relating to diet, exercise and lifestyle – not to fit some typecast about being unrealistically super thin.

Moreover, people in general should be encouraged to be happy with who they are, regardless of their body shape or size.

No one should be made to feel inadequate based on their clothing size or body shape.

 
• Who says ‘super slim’ is always more attractive?

Yes, beauty is an occupational requirement for models. But I certainly question any assumption that anyone (women in particular) has to be ‘super thin’ in order to be attractive.

Who says super slim is always more attractive? Not me.

Personally, I would not say that in general that I myself find women are super thin to be necessarily more physically attractive than those who have a healthy build and a normal, healthy weight. Moreover, from my own perspective, there are other attributes, such as attitude as well as neatness and appropriateness of gromming, which are far more important to me in this regard than any weight related considerations.

Any assumption about models who are not super thin not being physically attractive is highly questionable in my view.

 
Conclusion  
Despite these concerns, I still can’t get past the idea that beauty is an occupational requirement in modeling and employers should not be expected to continue the employment of individuals who are not able to meet this requirement.

I am undecided. What do you think?

This includes Google’s book scanning project, and given the significance of the benefits of the project from the viewpoint of the general public, I feel that it would be a great pity of the project was subject to any further substantial form of hindrance or delay.

 
Misguided objections
Perhaps I have not properly understood the nature of the objections to the project, under which Google has scanned a wide range of books from around the world and compiled them into a huge database, allowing users to easily discover books which are relevant to their topic of interest. But I don’t see how any of them stand up to any form of scrutiny.

These objections seem to boil down to three main categories:

 
• Breach of copyright.

Not being a legal expert, I am not in any kind of position to make informed comment with regard to the question of whether or not the project indeed breaches any form of legal right to which copyright holders may be entitled in America or any other country.

But from an ethical viewpoint, I find it hard to see how copyright holders have much of a legitimate complaint. Google has already gone to more than sufficient respect for their rights. Where the publications in question are subject to copyright, Google displays only miniscule snippets of the text which surround the relevant search term (although copyright holders do have the option of granting explicit permission to display either the entire publication or large sections of it). Even then, copyright holders who feel genuinely aggrieved even at this can have their publication removed altogether upon request.

This would seem more than fair, and I really don’t know what else Google could reasonably do in this regard.

 
• Creation of an uncompetitive monopoly.

True, Google enjoys a monopoly position in this area, which will be further entrenched if a settlement with the Authors Guild and American Association of Publishers is allowed to proceed.

But this is only because they have done something which competitors have so far been unwilling or unable to do.

Monopolies are objectionable where they are created and maintained by unduly restrictive conduct on the part of the monopolist, not in situations like this where they simply represent a natural outcome of one company being well ahead of its competitors.

As fair understand it, there is no reason why any firm or organization who wants to compete with Google in this area from simply doing what Google has done.

Google should not have to wait for its competitors to catch up before it starts reaping the rewards from its innovation.

 
• Threat to cultural diversity.

According to Wikipedia, the vast majority of books proposed to be scanned are in English. If this is the case, then it is indeed regrettable.  Not only could this result in a ‘disproportionate representation of languages in the digital world’, as Wikipedia puts it, an issue about which many Europeans are understandably sensitive, given the extent to which language represents a significant feature of their culture and identity, it could also have unintended consequences with regard to the shaping of the field of scholarship, a field in which German, Russian and French represent popular languages alongside English.

Fair argument. But on the flip side, the project allows internet users to discover a whole range of publications from different countries around the world which are relevant to their topic of interest. I would have thought will help to facilitate expansion of cultural awareness and diversity in a manner which is more than sufficient to offset any form of threat posed by any form of bias toward books written in English.

 
A truly wonderful service
Against these objections stands the very significant public benefit of the project.

Aside from the commercial benefits accruing to Google itself as well as authors and publishers, users of the service, such as casual readers, students or vocational or academic researchers derive a significant benefit through the ability to discover and locate references in their relevant area of interest or study more easily. And at a broader level, society in general should derive a significant benefit through the more efficient sharing of knowledge and expertise as well as exposure to a more diverse range of perspectives with regard to a whole range of subjects.

The project is a marvellous innovation which has already been bogged down in legal disputes for too long. It would be a great shame to see it bogged down much longer.

Britain should not make the same mistake twice, and assurances on the part of Gordon Brown that his government will not intervene with investigations into similar allegations against the company relating to its dealings with the governments of Tanzania, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Romania are more than welcome.

(After a six year investigation, Britain’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) announced on October 1 that it had sought consent from the Attorney-General to have BAE prosecuted with respect to these latter allegations.

The case currently rests with the Attorney-General, who will decide whether or not the evidence against BAE is sufficient at this time so as to take the case to court)

 
Saudi saga was a disgrace – don’t repeat it
The Saudi debacle in 2006 revolved around an investigation into allegations that BAE had made illegal payments (bribes) to officials and members of the royal family in Saudi Arabia in exchange for a large arms contract.

That investigation was abruptly shelved following personal intervention on the part of Tony Blair. Although national security concerns were sighted as the primary reason, there is little doubt that that action was driven by concerns over complications with regards to Britain’s relationship with the Saudis, who had threatened: (a) to pull out of an agreement with BAE to provide for the provision of new fighter aircraft – at the cost of up to 50,000 British jobs; and (b) to withdraw its cooperation in respect of the war on terror in the event that the investigation continued to proceed (refer article).

(The sensitivity on the part of the Saudis with respect to that investigation revolved around what any probe into BAE in this regard may reveal and expose with regard to the Saudi government’s own practices)

 
Hold them to account this time
That decision represented a shocking mistake, one which Britain should not repeat with regard to the allegations at hand.

These allegations should be handled in the appropriate manner – on their merits through the proper legal process without any form of political interference whatsoever.

Yes, these matters are sensitive. Risks to military operations and national security in the event of leakage of sensitive information should not be treated lightly, and any embarrassment on the part of foreign governments with regard to practices which are exposed as a result of any trial will certainly complicate relationships with key allies from Britain’s point of view.

But this is no reason for interference with regard to legal proceedings against BAE. Surely there are ways from which to hold the company to account without divulging sensitive military information, for example, by conducting some aspects of any resulting trial in secret or by expunging trial documents containing sensitive information from public record.

Moreover, concern about upsetting foreign governments should never deter countries from due and proper investigation of their own resident companies. The day any nation allows bullying or intimidation from foreign governments to prevent it from holding its own citizens and organizations to account is a sad day for that nation – no foreign relationship is worth that price.

 
If they’re so innocent – let them prove it
BAE claims that it has never made illegal payments of any kind. To be fair, they may not turn out to be guilty.

If so, they have nothing to hide - nor the foreign governments with whom they deal. Thus they would have no problem proving their innocence through the proper legal process.

But innocence should be established by proper legal proceedings, not political intervention.

If BAE is to avoid facing court, it should be because of a genuine belief on the part of the Attorney-General that there is insufficient evidence to support the case against them – NOT because British politicians cower to intimidation from foreign governments.

Gordon Brown should keep to his word, and he and his ministers should stay right out of this affair and simply let justice run its proper course.

After four extremely rewarding years of living abroad in South Korea, I have finally arrived back in my home town of Melbourne in Australia.

Much as I thoroughly enjoyed my time in South Korea (there are some people there and things about the country that I miss already), I have really missed my family and friends whilst I have been away and I am absolutely delighted to be back home in familiar surroundings.

I am also back online after having almost completely dropped off face of the earth in terms of the blogosphere over the course of the last two months. I certainly intend to start contributing as much as I can to discussions on some of your blogs again as much as possible in the near term future. In addition, I also intend to post either one or two discussions (according to other time commitments) here on this blog.

I’m so happy to be home again!

(Pictured above - family picture at my sister’s house on my first day back in Melbourne.

Seated from left: me, holding my nephew, Luca; my sister, Liz, holding my younger niece, Ava; and my sister’s boyfriend, Laurie, holding my older neice, Mia.

Standing: My father and mother)

But the level of concern expressed within the international business community about events surrounding his detention and that of three of his colleagues in recent weeks is more than justified, and the detentions will rightly be seen as a great big red warning flag for business leaders in China.

 
Three extremely troubling aspects of the case
Mr. Hu, an Australian national who is Anglo-Australian mining giant Rio Tinto’s general manager for iron ore in China, was detained on July 05 by Chinese authorities along with three other Rio employees (of Chinese nationality) for bribery and stealing of state secrets.

As is often the case with China, the case has been conducted in a manner of extreme secrecy, and reliable information is extremely difficult to obtain. Accordingly, it is not possible to make any kind of informed assessment as to whether the allegations have any merit or otherwise.

And that brings me to the first of three extremely troubling aspects of the case from the point of view of the international business community: 

•   Poor handling of the case.

Perhaps it is not unusual to see lack of any form of transparency or accountability on the part of the Chinese government with regard to its handling of criminal investigations and associated legal proceedings.

But given the importance of this case, both from a point of view of China’s reputation within the international business community and from the point of view of it’s bi-lateral relationship with my home country of Australia (a key supplier of raw materials to the country), it is certainly fair to say that the case could have been handled better. Much better.

Alas, the case has been handled poorly. Despite Hu being an Australian citizen, the Australian government was only notified of his arrest three days after the detention took place. In addition, the New York Times reports that as of Friday July 17, more than ten days after their arrest, none of the accused had been allowed access to a lawyer.

Moreover, the case has been shrouded with secrecy. Chinese officials have released very little information at all, and the international community have had to rely almost solely upon a trickle of unverifiable information from the Chinese official English newspaper.

This may be standard practice from the viewpoint of the Chinese government, but it is no way to conduct a case where the global business and investment community is watching and bi-lateral relations with an important supplier are bound to be affected.

Senior staff of multi-national companies, it seems, fare little better than political dissidents when it comes to the treatment which they receive under legal proceedings within the Chinese legal system. 

•  Timing and context of the case.

As the New York Times duly notes, given the circumstances and background surrounding this case, the suspicion the detention of Hu and his colleagues represents a form of payback is difficult to avoid.

Prior to his detention, Hu has been the lead negotiator for Rio in annual price negotiations regarding the supply of iron ore to Chinese steel mills – negotiations which have (unusually) drawn out over several months and are believed to have become increasingly difficult. In addition, it is only a few months rejection on the part of Rio of an offer by Chinese state owned company Chinalco to purchase a twenty per cent stake in the company.

It is no secret that the Chinese government is not particularly happy about either of these developments, and regardless of the merits of the case, any idea that their arrests have no relation to these developments would appear to be very hard to swallow indeed.  

•  Have commercial negations become state secrets?

Consider what Chinese authorities are apparently claiming as evidence of espionage - files discovered on Rio computers, including Hu’s containing information about the activity Chinese steel mills including outputs, sales, purchasing plans, stocks of raw materials and schedules of production (refer article).   

Isn’t it more than conceivable that this type of information might well have been volunteered by the mills themselves in the ordinary course of ongoing commercial relations? Does this mean that possession of ordinary business information could now potentially represent a breach of the ‘Law Guarding State Secrets?’ (The scope of this opaque law was extended in March to cover commercial and industrial espionage)

Questions such as these present due cause for a considerable level of concern amongst execs whose regular business involves dealings with state owned enterprises in China.

In short, the international business community should be very concerned about the detention of Hu and his fellow Rio employees.

Very concerned.

But there is one group of litigants for whom I have a considerable degree of empathy – tobacco litigants. I have a considerable degree of empathy for those who acquired the habit of smoking perhaps during the 1960s or 1970s, and are now trying to sue tobacco firms for compensation as a result of adverse health conditions with regard to which their consumption of tobacco is believed to represent a significant contributing factor.

Why – simply because of the way that the tobacco industry so blatantly mislead the public with about the health implications of smoking over the course of several decades.

 
To be sure, consumers are responsible for their own decisions ..
Under one plausible viewpoint, consumers who have smoked cigarettes for decades have only themselves to blame for any smoking related health problems which they may contract.

Such a viewpoint asserts that the scientific community had long warned about the dangers associated with cigarettes, and that those who chose of their own free will to continue the habit in spite of the known risks must take responsibility for any adverse health related consequences of their actions.

Though I do not agree, there does appear to be some degree of validity to this argument. Personally, I was not around during the 1960’s and early 70s, and I am therefore not in much of a position to make a great deal of informed comment about whether the dangers of smoking were generally well understood during that time. But from what I have read in Wikipedia, it would appear to me that the global scientific community has been actively warning about the link between smoking and lung cancer from as far back as the 1950s (refer article).

For this reason, there would be a somewhat reasonable argument (though I don’t agree) that those who adopted the habit should have been more than aware that their behavior was not safe.

 
.. but the industry also had a responsibility to tell the truth
But I cannot agree with this viewpoint, simply because of the role which the tobacco industry played in terms of creating confusion about the health impact of cigarettes by repeatly making blatant misrepresentations with regard to the scientific evidence on the subject.

It is a well documented fact that big tobacco gave repeated public assurances that consumption of tobacco related products was safe, even despite mounting opinion to the contrary amongst the scientific community. It is almost certain that by doing this, they created doubt in the minds of some smokers as to the question of whether or not smoking was expected to have a serious impact upon one’s health.

(Click here to watch a video showing Statements by the tobacco industry about the health issues of smoking)

This is one of the key differences between tobacco litigants and some other forms of consumer related complaints. McDonalds, for example, have never to my knowledge denied that eating a Big Mac every day would not represent a particularly healthy habit from a dietary viewpoint. Nor to my knowledge have casinos ever denied that excessive gambling behavior can result in serious financial, personal and emotional consequences.

But big tobacco most certainly assured smokers that cigarettes were safe – assurances which consumers surely had some right to place a degree of reliance upon.

In doing so, the tobacco industry failed to fulfill one of their fundamental basic fundamental obligations as a manufacturer – to provide truthful and accurate information with regard to the health and safety of their merchandise. They also opened themselves up to what I would have thought would have been a more than fair case for compensation claims from consumers who have suffered adverse health related conditions for which there is substantial reason to believe that consumption of cigarettes represents a significant contributing factor.

Personally, I will be finishing up my contract of employment here in Korea next month, and look forward to returning back home to my family and friends in Australia in September. Accordingly, I may not be as active within the blogosphere over the course of the next couple of months as I would otherwise have liked, not only as I make arrangements associated with the process of finishing up at work and subsequently moving back home, but also as I try to see and experience as much of Korea as I possibly can during my remaining time in this country.

That said, I do thoroughly enjoy the blogging process, and I certainly hope to contribute as much as I reasonably can toward discussions on some of your blogs over the next few months (along with continuing to post some discussions here) without neglecting commitments in other areas of my life.

Anyhow, I would sincerely like to thank the following commentators for their contributions during the past month:

Alik
Ana
Brad
Bill
Cath
Fred
Jake
Karen
Mark
Meryl
Mikael
Lillie
Robert

 
Ikea’s decision
Ikea announced on June 23 it’s intention to halt further expansion in Russia, citing the difficulties in terms of business operations caused by practices relating to corruption within the current administrative environment (refer article).

According to the announcement, the Swedish home furnishings retailer intends to continue to operate its stores in existence within the country and also to complete work associated with stores already under construction. Beyond that however, the company intends to suspend all future investment.

No doubt the decision was primarily driven by business-case considerations rather than any desire to make a stand based on moral grounds.

Nevertheless, the company’s decision is worthy of public applause. The problem of corruption at administrative levels in Russia will only be dealt with when companies take a stand. Hopefully, the sheer embarrassment from announcements like these will help to further stimulate existing efforts on the part of the government to eliminate these types of filthy practices.

 
Where the bribes apparently occur
The problems to which the company refers relate not so much to the government itself but more to the practices at the administrative level, such as when dealing with authorities relating to fire, health and safety, electricity, tax, customs and other related authorities.

‘Diligent’ officials in these areas have been known to particularly effective at discovering ‘problems’ with company operations. Such ‘problems,’ which would otherwise take a considerable time period and involve a significant level of administrative effort on the part of the company concerned in order to be resolved, are, from my understanding, typically considered to have been ‘rectified,’ after the authorities concerned receive some form of payment.

In Ikea’s case, these problems have been known to occur most frequently immediately prior to the opening of new stores, when the company is most vulnerable to any form of delay.

Examples described in the article referred to above include: (a)authorities declining to connect electricity days before the opening of one store in Moscow; (b)the halting of the opening ceremony at another Moscow store due to the parking lot being ‘too close’ to a natural gas pipeline; and (c)an outlet in Nizhny Nogorod being closed for its opening holiday season on the basis of ‘fire code violations’.

 
What the company’s decision says
As stated above, the company’s decision makes two clear statements about the problem of corruption within the Russian administrative environment.

 
• Dirty practices still exist despite cleanup efforts.

According to the article, the national government in Moscow has made considerable efforts in order to create the perception that corruption related problems are being dealt with, such as prohibiting surprise inspections by health and fire authorities and requiring the income and assets of their spouses as well as their own (spouses, apparently, are a common conduit for bribery related activity).

Whilst these types of measures no doubt represent a step in the right direction, Ikea’s decision clearly highlights the fact that not a great deal has changed in practice. Significant levels of corruption within the administrative environment, it would appear, still represent the reality which confronts firms who operate within Russia.

 
• Corruption affects ordinary citizens, not just individual target companies.

The halting of the company’s expansion in Russia means that job creation opportunities for ordinary citizens have gone begging.

So too have opportunities for consumers in some areas to experience the benefits in terms of convenience and price competitiveness typically associated with having a local Ikea store operating within their area.

I cannot help but wonder how many other foreign companies have either avoided operating in the country altogether or limited the scope of operations there partly out of concern about the prevalence of corruption related practices.  I also cannot help but wonder how many opportunities for consumers, small businesses and workers have been lost as a result.

Bottom line – corruption affects real people in real communities, not just the immediate target companies.

Factories within the Kaesong Industrial Complex (image via Wikipedia)

It’s probably not all that usual for a business ethics blogger to argue against a significant wage increase for full time workers in poor countries whose monthly salary is a paltry seventy five American dollars per month.

But when the majority of the increase (which would take the monthly wage to $300) would flow not to the worker but to one of the most repressive governments on earth, this is certainly one increase which I would could certainly not support at all.

 
About the increase
The increase relates to workers at the Kaesong Industrial Complex (shown above), an industrial park in North Korea located approximately six kilometers north of the border between North Korea and South Korea. The park represents a specially designated area whereby South Korean companies are allowed to operate within North Korean territory, utilizing the plentiful supply of low-cost labor from the North.

On a tour a few weeks ago to the DMZ, a heavily fortified and controlled area representing the border between South Korea and North Korea, our tour guide was telling us that North Korean workers employed at the park currently earn the equivalent of USD$75 per month.

However, in a somewhat extreme measure, the North Korean government is now demanding a four hundred per cent increase in this amount, to take the monthly wage up to $300.

 
Problem is, it’s all going to government coffers
Under normal circumstances, I would fully support wage increases for those who are poorly paid.

Those workers who perform an honest day’s work should be entitled to receive a fair and equitable level of financial reward for their effort. I have absolutely no idea what would be considered a good level of income by North Korean standards, but even if the workers got to keep the majority of their earnings, I could not imagine that earnings of $75 per month would represent a fair level of compensation compared to the value of the services which the workers provide.

Just one problem – little, or any of the increase will actually go to the workers.

Of the seventy-five American dollars per month that workers at the complex earn now, our tour guide informed us that the North Korean government takes seventy dollars, leaving just five dollars – yes, that’s right, just five American dollars per month, to be kept by the worker.

The workers keep only a tiny portion of what they earn now and it is highly unlikely that they will keep much of the benefit from any ‘wage increase.’

Instead, the vast majority of this increase, if it does indeed occur, will flow through to the coffers of the North Korean government - helping to finance a regime which appears to be hell-bent on the development of weapons of mass destruction and whose human rights record is not a great deal better than Sudan, Zimbabwe or Myanmar.

This cannot be supported under any circumstances. Wage rises which flow through into genuine benefits for workers and their families in poor countries can easily be supported on social grounds. But not ‘wage rises’ which merely mean more money for bomb making oppressive governments, and I certainly hope that the North does not receive its demands in this regard.

(Refer article for further information on this topic)