Global Guideline for the ‘Suicide Repulic’
‘Suicide republic’. Currently, South Korea, for many years consecutively, has been ranked first among OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries in suicide rate per 100,000 people. Even many authorities, such as former president Roh Moo-Hyun (committed suicide in 2009) and former mayor of Seoul Park Won-Soon (committed suicide in 2020), ended their lives by falling off a cliff. Therefore, the Republic of Korea disgraced itself with the nickname ‘Suicide republic’. With the primary cause of the overcompetitive academic atmosphere, the secondary cause of mental health issues is seemingly the main cause of suicides. Moreover, with the polarization of wealth at its peak, economic problems of those who are in the ‘blind spot’ of welfare are issued as well. Currently, the Korea Suicide Prevention Association is putting efforts to decrease the suicide rate and prevent suicide, but the effect seems mere, meaning that a more fundamental solution is needed. Thinking about the local issue of suicide in a global context, Japan and Singapore, the Asian neighbors have created appropriate solutions for resolving the suicide problem, which was once a significant problem for them. Therefore, while the Korean local issue of a high rate of suicide is largely due to mental health issues derived from stress from excessive competitiveness, thinking about a local issue in a global context help to resolve the local issue at a national level of the enactment of a bill, public social welfare, and by systematic mental health care.
Many South Korean students are extremely stressed about the academic workload they are enforced in order to go on to the so-called ‘in-Seoul’, or specifically, ‘SKY’ universities (Seoul univ, Korea univ, and Yonsei univ). Such demand and expectations for college entrance and good grades inside college significantly stressed students, causing mental problems. Korean adolescents reported academic performance pressure (32.8%) as the most important cause of anxiety and depressive symptoms, suggesting that “efforts relieving adolescents’ stress over university entrance examinations (mental health care) is necessary to decrease the suicide rate of Korean adolescents” (Bae 1916). Of the high suicide rate, “86.7% of people who attempted suicide had psychiatric diseases such as depression, addiction, anxiety, sleep disorders, and others” (Shin). Development expert Katrin Park writes that “the unemployment rate for young people was nearly three times the national average; the average price of an apartment in Seoul has doubled in the past five years under the current government’s misguided policies” (Park). Thus, the grim reality of the country added on to the depression of young 20s, in which “the number of young South Koreans suffering from depression jumped nearly twofold in five years” (Lee). The seriousness of mental health issues of young Koreans increased with the government’s complacent response to inadequate mental health care and lack of budget for suicide response legislation. Moreover, those who are in welfare blindspots suffer from financial difficulties. In fact, “seven to eight percent of the total population were at risk of securing permanent income” (KIHASA) due to welfare blind spots. With these complicated situations intertwined together, while the suicide rates of other developed countries are declining, South Korea, or the ‘suicide republic’ is going against the trend with an increasing suicide rate since 2017.
Unfortunately, the trend of globalization even worsened the circumstance of the suicide rate in South Korea. The reason is that the acceleration of the rise of the unemployment rate was partially caused by foreign contingent workers who were introduced to South Korea as a part of globalization. Allison Milner, in the article “Globalization and Suicide: An Ecological Study Across Five Regions of the World” discusses globalization’s impact “Republic of Korea increased their scores of globalization … influence of unemployment was significantly associated with higher (suicide) rates among Asia” (Milner et al. 241, 246). Thus, the increasing unemployment rate due to globalization can be affirmed that it has an effect on the high suicide rate. While it is true that the majority of foreign workers are in charge of simple labor, many people who are suffering from economic hardships try to commit suicide because they are not able to get simple labor. Particularly in South Korea, foreigners gained an advantage in simple labor employment as they do not demand minimum wage. In fact, compared to the past, statistics from OECD show that the share of foreigners in employment in Korea increased by 400% over a 15-year interval (2000~2015), which was the largest increase in the foreign share of employment in any OECD country (Evolution and Characteristics of Labour Migration to Korea). Moreover, South Korea is one of the few countries in which foreigners have a higher employment rate than nationals (Evolution and Characteristics of Labour Migration to Korea). Therefore, the globalization trend which has significantly increased during the past few decades even worsened the suicide rate situation in South Korea by affecting the economic problems of certain people.
Ironically, while it is true that globalization takes part in a small share of suicide rates in South Korea, the possible solutions to the problem also come from global solutions to the issue of suicide. Japan, a country with a complex relationship with South Korea, particularly provides a series of solutions. In the article “Why South Koreans kill themselves”, author Mitch Shin discusses that Japan’s “suicide rate has reportedly declined sharply since 2006, as local governments have actively responded to people who are highly likely to commit suicide (economic difficulties, family problems, etc) by enacting a basic law” (Shin). In fact, while Japan spends $54.5 billion per year (in 2017) for suicide prevention centered on social expenditure, such as suicide prevention campaigns and education, South Korea has only $34 million in the government budget (in 2020) allocated for suicide prevention, which is 160 times less compared to Japan (Cha). The study by Tetsuya Matsubayashi et al. in the research article “Government spending, recession, and suicide: evidence from Japan” shows that a “one-percent increase in government spending would translate to a reduction of the suicide rate per 100,000 by 0.078 cases, which translates to 17 suicides across the whole of Japan per year” (Matsubayashi et al. 5). This series of facts indicates that an increase in government spending is necessary to decrease the suicide rate. Moreover, as economic problems of those who are in the ‘blind spot’ of welfare, public social welfare expenditure should be focused on as well. While Japan ranks high with 22.2% of GDP allocated for public social welfare, South Korea ranks second lowest among OECD countries with only 9.6% of GDP allocated for public social welfare (Public Social Welfare Expenditure (OECD)). Therefore, various statistics indicate the need for an increase in government spending on suicide prevention and public social welfare. Also, correcting mistakes in government policy is essential for those who are in the blind spot of welfare.
While Japan provides solutions related to government policies and budget allocation, another country in Asia, Singapore, with Japan, provides solutions for mental health care for people, especially young students, who are in danger of committing suicide. Currently, “lifetime prevalence rate for mental disorders in Korea is reported at 27.6%” (Roh et al. 1). However, “in Korea, 15.3% of those afflicted with mental illnesses received mental health services (7). Moreover, while the “World Health Organization recommends that the mental health budget takes up 50~15 % of health care expenditures, Korea stands at an average of 3%, falling short of meeting the WHO recommended level” (8). These statistics show evidence of inadequate mental health care systems in South Korea. Furthermore, it indicates that in order to make a general repair to the mental health care system in South Korea, an increase in the mental health budget in a large amount is essential. Other than budget problems, consider Singapore, which has “similar levels of social stigma seen surrounding mental health issues” (Nagar) to Korea. Despite similar conditions, Singapore has comparatively low levels of mental illness, which caused a decrease in the suicide rate for nearly 20 years. The difference in the two countries’ mental health of citizens comes from the “manner in which Singapore delivers and administers its mental healthcare” (Nagar). “Singapore invested significant resources towards destigmatizing mental health, which is the amount that South Korea simply did not invest” (Nagar). Moreover, “the Singaporean government has actively partnered with major employers to help employees access mental health services” (Nagar), which was a significant effort to relieve the suicide problem especially compared to Korea, in which only 15.3% of people with mental illness received mental health services. Lastly, the “Singaporean government has largely overhauled the Singaporean mental healthcare system” with various methods. These reforms have “been more effectively able to treat and address those suffering from mental illness, which has, in turn, helped to mitigate and avoid a mental health epidemic” (Nagar). The successful example of the public health care system in Singapore proposes the way South Korea has to follow in order to improve the suicide rate problem in long-term.
The international solutions from Japan and Singapore shown in previous paragraphs assuredly will help to solve the local issue of the high suicide rate. Both countries give a key lesson for South Korea that investments from the government are the most effective way of decreasing the suicide rate. Taking into consideration the lessons from Singapore, in a short term, partnership with conglomerates related to mental health care is needed, considering that the conglomerates employ a large amount of the population of South Korea. Moreover, in the long term, the overall structural reform of the mental health care system is necessary with enough investments and fundraising similar to Singapore. Finally, “With these initiatives, South Korea could emulate the model of Singapore and help foster a more inclusive, accepting, and tolerant culture towards mental health issues” (Nagar). Currently, South Koreans think of mental illness as an embarrassment of one’s social status. However, for the government’s active movements for the improvement of the mental health care system, change in Koreans’ perception of mental illness will “offer a tangible set of reforms that the government could implement to curb the mental health crisis” (Nagar). Considering Japan, the neighbor of South Korea revealed that Korea’s efforts to improve the suicide problem were seriously lacking compared to their neighbor. Thus, data from a neighboring country Japan suggests that the increase in local government spending for suicide prevention mainly centered on various education and campaigns. Furthermore, an increase in public social welfare and change in welfare policy is necessary for decreasing the suicide rate for those who are in need of welfare benefits, but are actually in the ‘blind spot’ of welfare. A multidisciplinary and integrated network for local governments is essential for engagement in suicide-mitigation efforts (Shin).
The Republic of Korea, or the ‘suicide republic’ suffers from high suicide rates due to economic problems or mental health issues. Even though the globalization trend of the world somewhat contributed to suicide rates by increasing unemployment, globalization also ironically provided solutions for South Korea as well. Thinking about a local issue in a global context helped to think of the issue in a new light, which was solving the fundamental problems which were causing the high rate of suicide. Singapore guided appropriate steps to resolve mental illness issues in the short-term by partnering with companies, in the long-term by improving the mental health care system by investment, and by improvement of cultural perception towards psychiatric diseases. Japan, on the other hand, guided appropriate steps for suicide prevention by the increase in government spending, by national level of enactment of related bills, and by improving public social welfare for those who are in economic crisis. Therefore, the global context of Japan and Singapore provided significantly important models pointing toward a brighter future of improving South Korea’s local issue, which is the high rate of suicide.
Works Cited
Bae, Sung Man. “Individual and Social Stress, Social Capital, and Depressive Symptoms as
Predictors of Adolescent Suicide in South Korea: A Mediated Moderation Model.” Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 24, no. 13, 2019, pp. 1909–1919., https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105319847257.
Cha, Changhee. “Japan’s Suicide Prevention Budget is 160 Times Larger Than That of Korea.”
Maeil Economy, 6 July 2021, https://www.mk.co.kr/news/society/view/2021/07/651071/.
KIHASA (Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs), “26.3% Of the Population with a
Standard Median Income of 30% or Less.” KIHASA, 30 May 2021, https://www.kihasa.re.kr/news/press/view?seq=36697.
Lee, Joon-Seung. “More Youth Suffering from Depression: Data.” Yonhap News Agency, 29
Nov. 2019, https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20191129003700320.
Matsubayashi, Tetsuya, et al. “Government Spending, Recession, and Suicide: Evidence from
Japan.” BMC Public Health, 2020,
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-8264-1.
Milner, Allison, et al. “Globalization and Suicide: An Ecological Study across Five Regions of
the World.” Archives of Suicide Research, vol. 16, no. 3, 2012, pp. 238–249.,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2012.695272.
Nagar, Sarosh. “The Struggle of Mental Health Care Delivery in South Korea and Singapore.”
Harvard International Review, 11 Mar. 2022,
https://hir.harvard.edu/the-struggle-of-mental-health-care-delivery-in-south-korea-and-sin
gapore/.
OECD. “Evolution and Characteristics of Labour Migration to Korea.” Recruiting
Immigrant Workers: Korea 2019, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1787/22257969.
Park, Katrin. “South Korea is No Country for Young People.” Foreign Policy, 5 Nov. 2021,
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/05/south-korea-suicide-rates-mental-illness-squid-game/.
“Public Social Welfare Expenditure (OECD).” KOSIS, 30 Sep. 2021,
https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_2KAAD21_OECD.
Roh, Sungwon, et al. “Mental Health Services and R&D in South Korea .” International
Journal of Mental Health Systems, 2016,
https://ijmhs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13033-016-0077-3.
Shin, Mitch, and Andrew Salmon. “Why South Koreans Kill Themselves.” Asia Times, 1 Aug.
2020, https://asiatimes.com/2020/07/why-south-koreans-kill-themselves/.
WHO, “Gho | by Category | Suicide Rate Estimates, Crude — Estimates by Country.”
World Health Organization, 2019,
https://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDE.
Yonhap. “Suicide Remains Leading Cause of Death for S. Korean Teens, Youths.” The Korea
Herald, 27 Apr. 2020, http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20200427000687.
