hankyoreh

Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong makes a public apology for irregularities surrounding his inheritance of management rights at the Samsung Group and for the group’s policy of suppressing labor unions in Seoul on May 6. (photo pool)

On May 6, Samsung Electronics Vice Chairman Lee Jae-yong made a public apology for the irregularities surrounding his inheritance of management rights at the Samsung Group and for the group’s policy of suppressing labor unions and promised to abide by the law in the future. But his vague and fine-sounding pledges lacked the concrete measures that could have demonstrated their sincerity. His apology isn’t likely to satisfy the public expectation for Samsung to show that it’s really committed to reform, in the recognition that this is its last chance to sever ties with its dark past, including the shady handover of management rights and the suppression of unions.

During his press conference, Lee said that “many controversies connected with Samsung and me are derived” from his inheritance of management rights at the Samsung Group, while promising to ensure that “there’s no more controversy about the issue of management succession.” On the topic of Samsung’s intolerance of labor unions, Lee said, “The culture of labor-management relations at Samsung has failed to keep up with the changing times. I will ensure that the phrase ‘no union management’ is no longer used at Samsung.” He also made pledges about communication with the press and civic society and about legal compliance oversight.

Over the past three and a half years, Samsung has faced numerous investigations and trials in connection with the succession of management rights and with its policy of not tolerating unions. Samsung’s status as a global corporation has been repeatedly tarnished by allegations about misconduct in the merger of Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, bribes given to former president Park Geun-hye and her cronies, accusations about accounting fraud at Samsung Biologics, and examples of union busting. Against that background, there’s a certain significance in the fact that the group leader personally came forward to apologize to the public.

But nowhere in Lee’s statement can we find the minimum measures necessary to prove the sincerity of his apology, such as specific recognition of wrongdoing, measures to prevent its recurrence, or relief for those who were injured. Lee merely repeated generic and fine-sounding promises about not breaking the law. While his promise not to pass down management rights to his children can be seen as a positive step, he won’t have to make good on that promise for a decade or two. Civic groups such as People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy agreed that Lee’s apology was hollow.

Lee probably had to tread carefully about the succession of management rights because of the ongoing investigations and trials. But there’s no excuse for Lee failing to offer relief for the harm imposed on Korea’s National Pension Service and innocent stockholders at Samsung C&T by the ill-advised merger with Cheil Industries, a merger in which Lee gained billions of dollars in profit. That’s bound to disappoint Koreans who’d been hoping that Lee would express contrition for the wrongs Samsung has committed in the past and beg for a chance to mend its ways. It’s doubtful whether Lee’s apology was “acceptable to the public,” the standard that Samsung’s legal compliance oversight committee gave when it recommended that Lee make the apology in the first place.

Whenever a massive corruption scandal has blown up at Samsung — such as the “X files” at the Agency for National Security Planning in 2005 and the “slush fund” allegations in 2008 — Samsung has trotted out its head honcho or second-in-command to apologize for “disappointing” the public and to promise that such incidents won’t happen again. But not long after the hubbub subsides, Samsung finds itself under fire once again for a similar incident. Lee needs to take this opportunity to announce concrete reform measures that will testify to the sincerity of his apology. Otherwise, his apology is likely to come across as a mere formality, performed grudgingly with the hope of avoiding a prison term in his retrial.

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]