Former Professor at Kangnam University, Current Co-CEO of Jagyo-mo  The indiscriminate legislative process, culminating in the short tenure of the Lee Jae-myung administration, which is now reaching its 100th day, truly exemplifies a one-party dictatorship, with the public being led into risky actions without any regard for safety. In a word, it is legislation that essentially gifts our country to China, embracing communist totalitarianism. Negotiations on tariffs with the United States are now completely sidelined, and it seems as though our corporations, land, and even the very spirit of our people are being offered up to China. Frankly, from the perspective of a nation whose primary adversary, as a party to the Korean War, is China, one might have expected a simple "thank you" attitude, but this feels excessively egregious. This is because the Lee Jae-myung administration is not only merely repeating the destructive policies of the former administration under Moon Jae-in but is also firmly establishing a Chinese Communist Party-style ideological entrenchment on this land. 

Any president who defied China and emphasized friendly relations with the United States was invariably impeached. President Park Geun-hye, by initiating the deployment of THAAD, closing the Kaesong Industrial Complex, and adopting state-issued textbooks, pursued anti-communist and pro-American policies. While the impeachment was outwardly attributed to the Choi Soon-sil state affairs manipulation scandal, these actions were sufficiently provocative to China. President Roh Moo-hyun, despite being a leftist, signed the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and pursued pragmatic diplomacy. For this "offense," his impeachment was nominally based on the "relocation of the capital," but he too fell out of favor with China and was impeached. There is no need to elaborate on President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was impeached by the Democratic Party of Korea (which signed an agreement with the Chinese Communist Party in 2019) and rebel factions within the People Power Party (whose predecessor, the Grand National Party, signed an agreement with the Chinese Communist Party in 2009), who were manipulated by China, due to his stern warnings against China's invasion of Taiwan and his attempts to uncover election fraud clearly orchestrated by China. The common thread among these three impeached presidents is their political stance of confronting China directly and strengthening cooperation with the United States. The only difference is that President Roh Moo-hyun, who belonged to the left, was ultimately rescued by the ideologically left-leaning Constitutional Court justices. 

First, from an economic perspective, the Lee Jae-myung administration's China-leaning legislation is evident in the amendment of the Commercial Act. To whom can the duty of loyalty of directors to shareholders be attributed? While it is argued that this provision benefits minority shareholders in addition to the current controlling shareholder, it is widely known that Chinese capital, disguised as private equity or private investment, has infiltrated many of Korea's prime companies and holds substantial hostile stakes as the second or third largest shareholder, after the controlling shareholder. The directors appointed by the controlling shareholder have a fundamental duty to act in the company's interest, meaning the interest of all shareholders. However, if they are required to consider the interests of the second and third largest shareholders, who are in fact in an adversarial relationship, while also ostensibly considering minority shareholders, it is obvious where corporate management will head. It's like burning down the house to catch a flea; this law merely legally guarantees the possibility of hostile M&A by the second and third largest shareholders who are opposed to the current controlling shareholder.

The expansion of the number of outside directors to one-third of the board, designated as independent directors, is similarly problematic. This provision, combined with the cumulative voting system during the appointment of independent directors, allows shareholders hostile to the current controlling shareholder to solidify their positions in a "toehold" manner. These hostile outside directors, as independent directors, will predictably obstruct the controlling shareholder's autonomous decision-making on every issue and will advocate for China-centric management policies. The regulation limiting the total voting rights of controlling shareholders to 3% when appointing audit committee members is even more egregious. This allows for the complete takeover of the audit committee, thereby destabilizing current management. The mandatory electronic shareholder meetings for large listed companies also create opportunities for Chinese entities to disrupt or seize decision-making power through cyber hacking. 

Is that all? The recently implemented "Yellow Envelope Act," coupled with the "Serious Accidents Punishment Act" legislated during the Moon Jae-in administration, ostensibly to aid labor unions, designates even subcontractors as parties to negotiations and adds a peculiar clause about calculating individual losses from illegal actions. This effectively prevents companies from recovering any losses incurred from workers, making it a discriminatory and harmful law. As seen in the recent POSCO E&C incident, is it truly normal for the president himself to intervene and take measures that could lead to the closure of an entire company in order to provide humanitarian compensation for a small number of deceased Chinese subcontracted workers? In reality, on construction sites, Chinese workers have almost monopolized the supply of labor for the entire subcontracting sector since the implementation of the minimum wage system. The strict legal application of the minimum wage has led to a situation where companies predominantly hired Chinese day laborers who could be paid less than the minimum wage, disregarding regulations. This has escalated to the point where even team leaders overseeing these laborers are Chinese, resulting in Chinese workers dominating the lowest tier of construction day labor. Therefore, the Yellow Envelope Act and the Serious Accidents Punishment Act can be seen as legislation that benefits Chinese workers rather than Korean workers. Minister of Employment and Labor Kim Young-joo stated that the negative aspects of the Yellow Envelope Act could be adjusted if necessary in the future, which is akin to closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. Furthermore, does this imply an intention to exempt Chinese companies from these malicious provisions after the company has been transferred to Chinese ownership and then restored to its original state? Minister Kim is requested to provide an answer. 

This is not limited to the labor market. In the product market, Chinese-made electric buses, which receive an average subsidy of 100 million won per vehicle through taxpayer money, just like domestic products, accounted for 54.1% of the market share in the first half of 2024 (1,522 out of 2,815 electric buses sold) and are projected to exceed 65% in 2025. Conversely, Korea's electric bus exports to China averaged only 1.7 units between 2017 and 2024, a mere one-third of imports. Even considering that Korean batteries use NCM (Nickel, Cadmium, Manganese) materials, which are more expensive than Chinese lithium, this situation is untenable. China, on the other hand, has reportedly provided almost no subsidies for imported cars from Korea, citing various excuses, while granting subsidies to domestically produced vehicles. This is a clear and malicious disregard for international reciprocity. In contrast, the Korean government is eagerly trying to appease China and is desperate to open up our market. China has already abolished subsidies from 2024, yet Korea is still indiscriminately wasting taxpayer money on Chinese-made vehicles. Beyond buses, the import and sales of Chinese electric vehicles from brands like BYD and Xiaomi in the passenger car market are experiencing explosive growth, fueled by these subsidies. 

The tariff negotiations with U.S. President Trump seem to have broken down for several reasons. The most significant factor is interpreted to be the current administration's complete lack of cooperation with the U.S.'s policy to contain China. Sending the Speaker of the National Assembly to China's Victory Day celebrations, while abandoning the principle of prioritizing security with the U.S. and economic ties with China, infuriated President Trump. Is that all? Lee Jae-myung is alleged to have lied to President Trump, claiming that a special prosecutor was not appointed. The appointed special prosecutor, Cho Eun-seok, despite the general court's decision to release former President Yoon Suk-yeol, allegedly colluded with ideologically left-leaning judges to revive the case through an unconstitutional special prosecution, forcing a re-arrest. Furthermore, inhumane treatment was allegedly inflicted upon him while in detention, and even his wife, Kim Keon-hee, was arrested, thereby showcasing the administration's totalitarian dictatorial tendencies in full measure. This includes the suppression of churches and pastors who criticized leftist activities. There are even rumors that U.S. military bases were searched without the U.S.'s permission, and information was secretly provided to China. It is no wonder that President Trump remarked that "purges" and "revolutions" were occurring in Korea just three hours before his meeting with Lee Jae-myung. 

From an economic standpoint, since signing free trade agreements with both the United States and China, Korea has consistently maintained a trade surplus of over 50 billion dollars annually with the U.S. However, since 2023, it has experienced a complete trade deficit with China. This is largely attributed to the fact that, in addition to China stealing Korea's manufacturing technology, Korea has not imposed appropriate retaliatory tariffs on China, unlike with other countries. While Korean companies are forced into unequal joint ventures with Chinese firms, which include technology transfer, when investing in China, there are virtually no explicit restrictions when Chinese companies invest in Korea. Moreover, direct purchasing platforms such as Ali, Temu, and Shein have long dominated Korea's online retail market. From Korea's perspective, it is imperative to implement realistic tariffs on China, but the failure to do so is tantamount to abandoning Korean businesses and citizens while excessively appeasing the Chinese Communist Party and engaging in traitorous acts. 

Beyond the markets for production factors and goods, the large-scale influx of Chinese nationals and their trend of purchasing real estate are also a spectacle in the process of China's vassalization. Currently, nearly 2 million Chinese nationals have entered the country, and they are purchasing Korean housing and land extensively without any significant regulation. As of the end of 2024, Chinese nationals own 56,000 housing units and 19.3 km² of land, accounting for approximately 70% of all foreign-owned property. Coastal areas of Jeju Island have largely been transferred to Chinese ownership since 2010 due to the real estate investment immigration system (which grants permanent residency upon investment of over 500 million won). In Jeju, once Chinese nationals own a portion of the land and commercial areas, the consumer market primarily caters to Chinese individuals rather than Koreans, leading to the formation of "Chinatowns" and Sinicization not only among tourists but also among residents. Even more astonishing is the late revelation that the Chinese government purchased 4,162 m² of land near the presidential office in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, for approximately 30 billion won during the Moon Jae-in administration, adding to the shock. Selling even a single pyong of our nation's land to a foreign government is equivalent to selling out the country. While the Lee Jae-myung administration, under the guise of stabilizing real estate prices, imposes absolute limits on loan amounts for purchasing property for Korean citizens, Chinese nationals can borrow unlimited funds from China to purchase Korean real estate. This is not merely a matter of reverse discrimination; it is akin to selling out the country. Despite this, the Lee Jae-myung administration fully permits visa-free entry for Chinese nationals, which is beyond comprehension. 

Now, the people must awaken. Opening our doors to foreign countries must always be conducted on the principle of mutual equality and in a manner that enhances mutual benefit. The Lee Jae-myung administration must cease its policy of de facto vassalization to China. The true owners of this nation are, of course, Koreans.