By Oh Young-jin
City Editor

Dear Mr. Breen,

I enjoyed your column about my column. As usual, yours filled in parts left missing and straightened a skewed line of logic. I am writing today's column not as a "counter-column" to yours or with the intention of rebutting what you stated, but more out of regret over my failure to make myself clear.

Besides, I don't see the point in trying to fight when you are at your best. This is perhaps the least I can do as an avid reader of your columns and as a friend. I see you in the same league as David Brooks in terms of logical propagation, as Mareen Dowd in sensibility, as Tom Friedman in determination, and the late William Safire in respectability. (I'm sorry to other syndicated columnists or columnists writing for other publications, but those mentioned are the ones I read regularly.)

Let's get back to the job of clarification; the purpose I set out for in this column.

I agree with you that, figuratively speaking, I left a hanging sentence without adequately explaining myself about the point over why I think the Lone Star fund's CEO John Grayken's unshaven face and loosened tie had anything do with his failed attempt to sell the Korea Exchange Bank, for which the Dallas, Texas-based fund, has a controlling stake.

I think you can find your answer in your own outstanding book: "The Koreans." If you didn't write it in plain sight, you must have referred to it between the lines. It is about face ― something on which we, Koreans, sometimes place greater importance than anything else.

The way I see it, if many Koreans didn't take Grayken's disheveled appearances as an insult, they may as well have seen it as a sign of unpreparedness for his important mission.

Just imagine. Here is the leader of a private equity fund that is about to do a transaction worth billions of dollars in a foreign country with his face reminding some of an unrefined carpetbagger during the U.S. Civil War.

Besides, my point could be made clearer, should it be linked with Grayken's failure to deliver on his promise to donate a significant sum to Korea. When he made that public pledge, it followed similar pledges made by Samsung and Hyundai Automotive. For the two firms, it was an attempt to soften a raging public backlash about their corporate misconduct. But they made good on their promises.

Although Grayken and his fund have not been proven to be engaged in any similar misconduct, when one gives his word, he is expected to keep it. This is another point deducted from his public relations strategy.

In your column's conclusion, you state that Grayken didn't deserve to be blamed for all the hiccups in his attempt to sell and leave, but Korea got what it deserves for the way it mishandled the Lone Star case ― bad publicity that will ward off international investors.

I can't agree with you more on this point, too. But I also think it is true that any sensible investor would take into account not just the Lone Star case, but also GM's takeover of Daewoo Motor, Renault's acquisition of Samsung Motors and Standard Chartered's ownership of Korea First.

What about all those international consulting firms thriving in Korea?

A look at the forest of buildings in Seoul also shows a significant portion of it belongs to international investors. Even the building my office is housed in is owned by a foreign investor, whom I thank for promptly refilling the hand wash containers against the new flu.

I don't see that a growing influence exerted by international investors in the Korean economy is bad; rather, I take it as a healthy sign of Korea's globalization. My point is that Lone Star is an isolated case and taking it out of proportion is a mistake.

Last but not least, I agree with your observation that candlelit protests against the government's decision to resume U.S. beef imports reached the level of a collective paroxysm of hysteria.

But it is also true that the issue at heart was not U.S. beef coming back into Korean markets, but the lack of seriousness shown in the decision-making process. In other words, it was the issue of domestic politics, with U.S. beef being an accidental trigger of public emotion left over from the previous presidential election, in which the liberal camp had to give up the reins of power it had held for 10 years to the conservative side. For one, I declare that I really enjoyed American beef during my one-year stint in Texas and I don't mind buying it at Korean markets.

I see the process as a Korean way of national catharsis. Sure, I don't want a repeat of such massive protests over what appeared to be an issue related to foreigners because it would be a waste of energy and time. But, at the same time, I think that, thanks partially to those undesirable incidents, the Lee Myung-bak administration has matured and is trying to better serve the people.

If this was a case of collective hysteria, I think that it was more democratic hysteria, which is not exactly what the ancient Greeks had in mind.

To clarify one last thing, my previous column was not an attempt to offend any foreigners, but was meant to provide a fact sheet of the way I see Koreans, as a way to help foreigners realize their potential chances while living and doing business here. Admittedly, I failed but I hope I will learn from it, as I am constantly being enlightened by your columns.

Best regards,

foolsdie@koreatimes.co.kr