[Viewpoint] Building a Relationship with Samsung

The Taiwanese Government and People Rally Behind TSMC
Why Do We Hesitate to Support Samsung?

People say that worrying about celebrities and chaebols is a pointless matter, but this does not mean referring to Samsung as the possession of a specific individual or family. Samsung, as a company that holds a massive share of our economy, employs hundreds of thousands, and supports the livelihoods of millions, can be distinguished in two ways without much difficulty.

Before getting to the main point, there is no need to enumerate the economic stature that Samsung, especially Samsung Electronics, holds. The importance of the products they make and sell, particularly semiconductors, extends beyond the economy to national security. Since such a company has fallen into a serious crisis, the sense of urgency that the media, government, and political circles must urgently do something is a matter entirely different from pointless chaebol worries.

Thus, various pieces of advice pour in. They are mostly professional and technical in nature. Criticism of organizational culture is also common. However, it is unlikely that Samsung’s current crisis has come about because it failed to diagnose these issues.

Rather, the point the author contemplates is why citizens, the government, and political circles hesitate despite readily expressing concern for Samsung. This issue is important because Samsung’s crisis cannot be fully overcome by efforts merely to make up for business missteps. The semiconductor business, intricately intertwined with economics, diplomacy, policy, and law, requires a comprehensive approach across multiple fields.

A top executive at Samsung privately expressed regret, saying, “I envy the support, affection, and pride that the Taiwanese people and government send to TSMC.” The Taiwanese people call TSMC the “Sacred Mountain that protects the nation (護國神山, Hogukshinsan).” It is also well known that the Taiwanese government spares no all-around support to protect TSMC.

However, as described, the sentiment of our people toward Samsung is incomparably different from that of Taiwan toward TSMC. Conscious of this, the government and political circles worry about the “chaebol favoritism” frame and respond passively to regulatory improvements or institutional arrangements for Samsung. The media also fears that concerns or advice about Samsung might be confused with the pitiful confession of a certain journalist who said they “see the world through Samsung’s eyes.”

It is hard to deny that Samsung itself has brought about some aspects of this reality. Therefore, Samsung’s crisis recovery process should not stop at discovering and correcting business and technical problems. It must advance to asking and answering uncomfortable questions about what problems have existed in the relationships Samsung has had with our society, its members, investors, and power, and why our people cannot call Samsung a “Hogukshinsan.” Samsung itself must be given the opportunity to confront these questions.

If Samsung takes too long to find solutions to overcome the crisis, the lives of each of us, directly or indirectly connected to Samsung, will also suffer greatly for some time. Of course, Samsung is not the only global company in Korea, but in any case, the arduous process we do not want to imagine will be unavoidable. Supporting Samsung so that it can stand tall again with its super-gap technology should not be dismissed as “chaebol favoritism,” as there is little to gain from that.

Samsung must also reestablish its relationship with society through advanced corporate activities and structural changes based on a sense of responsibility that it is broadly connected to the lives of the people. Building the belief that Samsung’s development is not different from the future our society pursues can be a much more important product of crisis recovery than passing Nvidia’s quality test.