When I see the government and the National Assembly come down hard on companies in the field, I feel a secret sense of satisfaction. Lawmakers summon offending companies to berate them, and the government launches sweeping investigations and audits. In the end, the companies bow their heads and say, "We will make sure this never happens again." The spectacle of the government and the National Assembly beating up on business executives to release the public's emotional frustrations every time a company causes trouble has become something of a formula.
The government and the National Assembly showed the same pattern late last year when Coupang (CPNG, NYSE), a U.S.-listed company, leaked the personal information of more than 30 million Korean citizens. The National Assembly started with a hearing at the Science, ICT, Broadcasting, and Communications Committee, putting Coupang executives on the witness stand, and quickly escalated to a joint hearing involving multiple standing committees. What began as a personal data breach issue expanded into demands for a parliamentary investigation covering labor, logistics, unfair trade practices, and taxation all at once. The government was no different. As soon as the data breach investigation began, the National Tax Service, the Fair Trade Commission (FTC), and labor inspectors from multiple ministries moved simultaneously, mounting an all-out pressure campaign.
The problem is that the price is far too steep when this cathartic approach is applied wholesale to a global company. Coupang's U.S. investors filed a petition requesting an investigation under Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act, arguing that the Korean government used the data breach as a pretext to discriminatorily pressure the company by mobilizing tax, fair trade, and labor regulations all at once. Section 301 is one of America's most potent trade retaliation tools, allowing high tariffs and service restrictions targeting specific countries and industries when deemed necessary. If the second Trump administration — already desperate to find justifications for tariff hikes — seizes on this case, the anger once directed at Coupang could instantly boomerang into a bill aimed at all Korean exporters.
It is time to reflect on whether our cathartic approach is excessively emotional compared to global norms. Singapore, for example, does not mobilize the full force of its administrative apparatus to pressure companies from all directions in similar situations. Instead, an independent data protection authority imposes fines and corrective orders only on matters directly related to the case, within set procedures and timelines. Even if the penalties are severe, the system is structured so that companies and investors can know in advance where the rules stand. It is time for us, too, to consider a cool-headed regulatory system that operates on principles, not emotions.