There are three standards said to be useful for self-examination before speaking. Known as "the three sieves," they are attributed variously to Socrates' method of filtering words and to early Buddhist scriptures. The three criteria are: first, is it true; second, is it necessary; and third, is it sufficiently kind. If a statement fails even one, it is better left unsaid.
Consider scolding a child with, "Have you been watching the tablet all day long?" First, it is likely not true. The expression is not gentle, either. A sarcastic and reproachful tone only adds unpleasantness. Since the message does need to be conveyed, "It would be better to stop watching" or "Shall we do something else?" works better.
The same can be applied to public remarks. Regarding the "Tank Day" marketing controversy at Starbucks Korea, President Lee Jae-myung demanded accountability, saying, "I am outraged at the inhumane and outrageous behavior of these low-grade peddlers who deny the Republic of Korea's community, fundamental human rights, and democratic values." Whether Starbucks Korea intentionally denied democratic values is unclear. But it did undermine a historical lesson and humiliated the victims. In that sense, the president's criticism largely passes the first sieve of "truth."
The expression, however, is not "gentle." In a private conversation, it would be tantamount to severing ties. That is what the third sieve should filter out. Even more is caught by the second sieve — "is it necessary and useful?" — particularly considering the social fallout that followed.
A president has a role in presenting the community's value standards through governance. To that extent, pointing out the moral standards of corporate citizens was useful. The problem is that the top leader's heated message became a guideline, and government ministries and state institutions stepped forward as "agents of punishment," as if competing in a contest of loyalty. Following the interior minister's call for a boycott, the Ministry of National Defense, Ministry of Justice, and the National Election Commission joined the Starbucks boycott. It came close to a state-led campaign. One civil servant said, "With this coming from the top, I'm reluctant even to set foot in a Starbucks."
Politicians piled on, distorting the essence of the matter further. The Democratic Party of Korea issued an order to refrain from patronizing the chain, while the People Power Party countered with photos of members visiting the stores. The realm of consumption was reduced to a testing ground for camp politics that divides allies and enemies. Even consumers found themselves weighing political choices over a single cup of coffee.
Watching this unfold, industry players took away a lesson less about heightening historical sensitivity than about a familiar truth: do not fall out of favor with those in power. Considering all of this, was the president's remark truly necessary and useful for our society and market?
The government's role ends at presenting social standards to a corporate citizen that has shown moral failings. It must not extend to mobilizing administrative power to choke that company to death. A message from a state institution, far more than from a mere individual, must be grounded in truth, useful to society, and delivered in a gentle manner.
