challenge

Dec. 21 (Asia Today) — Nearly half of South Korea’s small and medium-sized exporters expect their overseas shipments to decline next year, with many citing intensifying low-price competition from China as their biggest challenge, a survey released Sunday found.

The Korea Federation of SMEs said its “2026 SME Export Outlook Survey” polled 1,300 exporting SMEs from Dec. 1-12.

In the survey, 68.6% of respondents said they expect exports to increase in 2026 compared with this year, while 31.4% forecast a decrease, the federation said.

Among firms expecting export growth, cosmetics exporters (86.4%) and medical and biotech exporters (86.1%) were the most optimistic, the federation said. The most common reason for expecting export growth, in multiple responses, was improved product competitiveness through new product launches and quality improvements (47.1%), followed by diversification of export markets (29.8%) and improved price competitiveness due to exchange rate appreciation (21.6%).

Among SMEs forecasting weaker exports, 49.3% cited intensifying low-price competition from China as their main export challenge, followed by greater exchange rate volatility (44.6%), sharp increases in raw material prices (37.0%) and uncertainty over U.S. and European Union tariff policies (35.0%), the federation said.

Planned responses to weaker export performance included diversifying export markets (28.2%), improving quality or launching new products (23.0%) and reducing production costs such as labor and raw materials (21.8%), according to the survey.

Despite tariff concerns, the United States ranked first among markets SMEs most want to enter or expand into, at 21.0% when combining first-, second- and third-priority choices, the federation said. Europe followed at 15.2%, with Japan and China tied at 10.6%.

For government priorities to strengthen export competitiveness, respondents most frequently called for expanding support for an export voucher program (53.5%), followed by building a system to counter China’s low-cost offensive (35.8%) and strengthening diplomacy to respond to U.S. and EU tariffs (35.1%), the federation said. Other priorities included expanding support for participation in overseas exhibitions, including in emerging markets (31.5%) and supporting overseas certification and regulatory compliance (27.2%).

Chu Moon-gap, head of the federation’s economic policy division, said it was significant that SMEs are projecting export growth by improving competitiveness despite external headwinds such as tighter export regulations by various countries. He added that companies’ ability to reduce total costs, including production and logistics costs, tariffs and lead times, will be key to export competitiveness and said the government should prepare cost-reduction support measures to help SMEs respond to China’s low-cost competition.

– Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Dec. 16 (Asia Today) — Rebellion Chief Executive Park Sung-hyun said Tuesday the South Korean AI semiconductor startup wants to “compete head-to-head” with Nvidia as the company marked its fifth anniversary and said its valuation has reached about 2 trillion won (about $1.5 billion), meeting the threshold commonly used for “unicorn” status.

“Even if it kills me, I want to step into the same ring as NVIDIA and face them head-on,” Park said at a media day at Rebellion’s headquarters in Seongnam, south of Seoul.

Founded in 2020, Rebellion has positioned itself as an AI chipmaker focused on inference – the computing used to run AI services – rather than large-scale model training. The company said it has built “real-world” usage references by deploying its chips in services with live traffic in telecommunications, the public sector and enterprise markets.

Executives said competition in AI semiconductors is shifting as AI services spread and inference becomes a key battleground, where power efficiency and operating costs can matter as much as raw performance. The company pointed to moves such as Google‘s expansion of its Tensor Processing Unit into large-scale cloud offerings as evidence that specialized AI chips developed for internal use can be adapted for commercial services.

Rebellion said it is seeking to differentiate itself in a market not fully centered on Nvidia by focusing from the outset on inference-optimized designs. Park said the company expects measures such as cost per token and throughput per watt to become increasingly important as AI services scale.

Park also criticized what he described as the practical challenges facing domestic AI chip companies, arguing that government support for AI infrastructure – particularly around graphics processing units – has largely benefited large companies and established cloud providers. “This is disappointing for AI semiconductor companies targeting the inference market,” he said, while adding the company plans to pursue competition through chips and systems rather than policy-driven, software-centric approaches.

Rebellion said its merger with Sapion Korea, finalized last year, strengthened its global expansion efforts. Through the deal, SK Telecom and SK Hynix became major shareholders, providing capital and boosting credibility, Park said. He added that SK Hynix’s brand reduces the burden on Korean startups seeking recognition abroad.

The company said it raised 92 billion won (about$70 million) from KT in a 2022 Series A round and 165 billion won (about $125 million) in a 2024 Series B round from overseas investors including Saudi Aramco and Singapore’s Pavilion Capital. Rebellion said a Series C round this year included investment from Arm, which it described as a milestone for an Asian startup.

Rebellion said it mass-produced its first neural processing unit, ATOM, in 2023 and later introduced a higher-performance inference chip, REBEL-Quad. It said it has established overseas subsidiaries in Japan, Saudi Arabia and the United States as it expands international business.

Rebellion said it has selected Samsung Securities as lead underwriter for an initial public offering and has begun listing preparations. The company plans to pursue a Korean listing first, while also targeting a longer-term U.S. listing, it said.

Park said the company now sees itself as part of South Korea’s “deep tech” push and aims to become a key player in global AI infrastructure.

-Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Republicans and Democrats squared off in court Monday in a high-stakes battle over the fate of California’s Proposition 50, which reconfigures the state’s congressional districts and could ultimately help determine which party controls the U.S. House in the 2026 midterms.

Dozens of California politicians and Sacramento insiders — from GOP Assembly members to Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell — have been called to testify in a Los Angeles federal courtroom over the next few days.

The GOP wants the three-judge panel to temporarily block California’s new district map, claiming it is unconstitutional and illegally favors Latino voters.

An overwhelming majority of California voters approved Prop. 50 on Nov. 4 after Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched the redistricting plan as a way to counter partisan gerrymandering in Texas and other GOP-led states. Democrats admitted the new map would weaken Republicans’ voting power in California, but argued it would just be a temporary measure to try to restore national political balance.

Attorneys for the GOP cannot challenge the new redistricting map on the grounds that it disenfranchises swaths of California Republicans. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.

But the GOP can bring claims of racial discrimination. They argue California legislators drew the new congressional maps based on race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits governments from denying citizens the right to vote based on race or color.

On Monday, attorneys for the GOP began by homing in on the new map’s Congressional District 13, which currently encompasses Merced, Stanislaus, and parts of San Joaquin and Fresno counties, along with parts of Stockton.

When Mitchell drew up the map, they argued, he over-represented Latino voters as a “predominant consideration” over political leanings.

They called to the stand RealClearPolitics elections analyst Sean Trende, who said he observed an “appendage” in the new District 13, which extended partially into the San Joaquin Valley and put a crack in the new rendition of District 9.

“From my experience [appendages] are usually indicative of racial gerrymandering,” Trende said. “When the choice came between politics and race, it was race that won out.”

Republicans face an uphill struggle in blocking the new map before the 2026 midterms. The hearing comes just a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Texas to temporarily keep its new congressional map — a move that Newsom’s office says bodes poorly for Republicans trying to block California’s map.

“In letting Texas use its gerrymandered maps, the Supreme Court noted that California’s maps, like Texas’s, were drawn for lawful reasons,” Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said in a statement. “That should be the beginning and the end of this Republican effort to silence the voters of California.”

In Texas, GOP leaders drew up new congressional district lines after President Trump openly pressed them to give Republicans five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. A federal court blocked the map, finding racial considerations likely made the Texas map unconstitutional. But a few days later the Supreme Court granted Texas’ request to pause that ruling, signaling they view the Texas case, and this one in California, as part of a national politically-motivated redistricting battle.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California),” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued, “was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

The fact that the Supreme Court order and Alito’s concurrence in the Texas case went out of their way to mention California is not a good sign for California Republicans, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

“It’s hard to prove racial predominance in drawing a map — that race predominated over partisanship or other traditional districting principles,” Hasen said. “Trying to get a preliminary injunction, there’s a higher burden now, because it would be changing things closer to the election, and the Supreme Court signaled in that Texas ruling that courts should be wary of making changes.”

Many legal scholars argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas case means California will likely keep its new map.

“It was really hard before the Texas case to make a racial gerrymandering claim like the plaintiffs were stating, and it’s only gotten harder in the last two weeks,” said Justin Levitt, a professor of law at Loyola Marymount University.

Hours after Californians voted in favor of Prop. 50 on Nov. 4, Assemblymember David J. Tangipa (R-Fresno) and the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit alleging that the map enacted in Prop. 50 for California’s congressional districts is designed to favor Latino voters over others.

The Department of Justice also filed a complaint in the case, arguing the new congressional map uses race as a proxy for politics and manipulated district lines “in the name of bolstering the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.”

Mitchell, the redistricting expert who drew up the maps, is likely to be a key figure in this week’s battle. In the days leading up to the hearing, attorneys sparred over whether Mitchell would testify and whether he should turn over his email correspondence with legislators. Mitchell’s attorneys argued he had legislative privilege.

Attorneys for the GOP have seized on public comments made by Mitchell that the “number one thing” he started thinking about” was “drawing a replacement Latino majority/minority district in the middle of Los Angeles” and the “first thing” he and his team did was “reverse” the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s earlier decision to eliminate a Latino district from L.A.

Some legal experts, however, say that is not, in itself, a problem.

“What [Mitchell] said was, essentially, ‘I paid attention to race,’” Levitt said. “But there’s nothing under existing law that’s wrong with that. The problem comes when you pay too much attention to race at the exclusion of all of the other redistricting factors.”

Other legal experts argue that what matters is not the intent of Mitchell or California legislators, but the California voters who passed Prop. 50.

“Regardless of what Paul Mitchell or legislative leaders thought, they were just making a proposal to the voters,” said Hasen, who filed an amicus brief in support of the state. “So it’s really the voters’ intent that matters. And if you look at what was actually presented to the voters in the ballot pamphlet, there was virtually nothing about race there.”

Marian La Follette, who spent 10 years as a Republican Assemblywoman from Northridge before retiring in 1990, plans to enter the state Senate race in the new district that stretches from Oxnard to the San Fernando Valley, Republican sources said Tuesday.

“I just spoke to her a little while ago, and she has made up her mind that she will be running,” said Charles H. Jelloian, a Republican from Northridge. Jelloian said he has decided to withdraw from the state Senate race, partly to make way for La Follette’s return to politics.

“Marian’s jumping into the race is a very big factor,” said Jelloian, who became acquainted with La Follette when he was an aide to state Sen. Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale). “I worked very, very well with her for a long time,” he said. “I have a lot of respect for her.”

La Follette has lived in Orange County since her retirement. She could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

If she enters the race, she could pose a formidable challenge to Assemblywoman Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) in the new 19th state Senate District. So far, Wright is the leading candidate in the district that encompasses Oxnard, Camarillo, Thousand Oaks, Moorpark, Fillmore, Simi Valley and Northridge.

“Both are new to this district,” said one Republican source. “I think they would start out about equal.”

Roger Campbell, a Republican city councilman in Fillmore, also has declared his candidacy in the heavily Republican district. No Democratic candidate has come forward in the district that has roughly 28,000 more registered Republican voters than Democrats.

La Follette, a conservative legislator, was best known for her persistent efforts to divide the massive Los Angeles Unified School District into smaller districts.

She decided to retire two years ago when her late husband, Jack, a Los Angeles lawyer, fell seriously ill with cancer.

When she was in the Legislature, she aligned herself with Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita), who is vacating the Senate seat. Republican sources said they anticipate that Davis will support her candidacy against Wright, a longtime political foe.

La Follette’s candidacy is another indication that Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) will run for Congress. She and McClintock are strong political allies.

McClintock has toyed with the notion of running for state Senate, GOP sources said. The long-anticipated announcement of his plans has been postponed until later this week.

While both Cardiff and Ospreys won, the off-the-politics are never far away with rumours of a link-up in the future between the two teams. However unpopular that scenario is.

Ospreys owners, Y11 Sport & Media, have been linked with taking over Welsh Rugby Union-owned Cardiff, with the move creating dismay among both sets of supporters on social media.

The Welsh Rugby Union are looking for a way to cut the number of men’s professional side from four to three. Ospreys owners buying Cardiff might provide a neat solution for them.

Discussions are expected to continue between the WRU and other interested parties about the Cardiff takeover.

In April, the WRU stepped in after Cardiff temporarily went into administration.

The Blue and Blacks might be owned by the WRU but that does not stop the club providing a platform for criticism of Welsh rugby’s governing body in the match programme, external for the Ulster game.

The CF10 Rugby Trust, an independent Cardiff supporters group, produced an article welcoming back Leigh Halfpenny but also reflecting on what they perceive as recent WRU failures.

An extract read: “He [Halfpenny] was part of a Cardiff side that had been allowed to develop over time with steady, reliable funding, and youngsters coming into that environment felt the benefit.

“The past 10 years in Welsh rugby have sadly offered a less ideal stage for young talents.

“So often our professional teams have been unable to know what their budgets are until too late in the day to recruit properly. So often, jobs on and off the field have been put under threat.”

The programme article continued: “Over these past 17 years, Welsh pro rugby has lost its way. We have been badly let down by the Welsh Rugby Union (WRU).

“By creating a situation of chronic instability, the game’s leaders have let down every young player dreaming of professional rugby and following in Halfpenny’s footsteps. Welsh rugby continues to go through a period of chronic uncertainty.”

WASHINGTON — Republican critics of affirmative action hailed Monday’s Supreme Court decision as a mandate for even more sweeping action by Congress and vowed to press home their attack on federal programs of racial preference.

Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole called the ruling–that preferential treatment based on race is almost always unconstitutional–”one more reason for the federal government to get out of the race-preference business” and summoned fellow lawmakers “to follow the court’s lead and put the federal government’s own house in order.”

Dole, once a supporter of affirmative action, has called for hearings on the subject in the Senate, and has said he may sponsor legislation to rewrite many of the programs. He was joined in his praise of the court ruling by fellow presidential contender Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), who said Monday’s decision “greatly strengthens the prospects” that he would seek to amend all funding bills passing through Congress this year to bar the use of federal dollars for “quotas and set-asides.”

The court’s dramatic ruling, meantime, thrust President Clinton and other Democrats into a new bind both legally and politically. Administration officials acknowledged it has disrupted a review of the federal government’s 180-odd affirmative action programs now under way. Clinton had sought the review to help deflect criticism both from the GOP and conservative forces within his own party.

Legally, Clinton now can hope to save parts of affirmative action only if he can come up with new rationales that are defensible under the narrow terms outlined by the Supreme Court on Monday. The court said affirmative action programs can be upheld as a means to correct specific, provable cases of discrimination, but not to correct suspected discrimination by a society over time.

That, in turn, underscores Clinton’s political challenge in dealing with the charged issues of race and gender. The President must either acquiesce in cutbacks to affirmative action programs, thereby risking alienation of minority voters who are crucial to his party’s base, or actively defend the programs and risk offending large numbers of white voters.

“This has really intensified the question of which programs should live and which should die,” said one Senate Democratic aide. “And that really raises the heat on what Clinton has been doing.”

The White House has said it expects to complete its review of affirmative action by the end of this month. Before the court announced the rulings, officials familiar with the review have predicted that it would essentially affirm most principles of federal affirmative action, while calling for changes in the procurement “set aside” programs that have attracted so much criticism.

Administration aides were in general agreement that the decision now would considerably delay the results of the review, which were to be released in a major thematic speech.

“If we’re not back to square one, we’ve at least moved back some distance,” said one Administration official.

But with the White House still contemplating its next move on the issue, House Republicans are set to redraft completely the controversial programs that were launched in the early 1960s to compensate women and minorities for past discrimination in higher education and the job market.

Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.), a one-time Democrat who now chairs the House Judiciary Committee’s constitution subcommittee, is set later this month to unveil legislation that would forbid the federal government to use gender or race preferences in any federal program, and dismantle many of the programs that have come to be central to affirmative action.

The House bill would effectively repeal one of the central features of 160 government programs that use racial and gender preferences in hiring and promoting federal workers, granting federal contracts and awarding benefits under federal programs. It would call a virtual halt to federal programs that “set aside” slots and pools of funding for businesses owned by minorities and women, and would require substantial changes in other programs.

On Monday, Canady said the court’s decision “gives impetus” to Republicans’ political efforts to roll back many such programs, by making clear the court’s intent to “return to a focus on individual rights” over groups’ rights.

But the complex ruling, he added, also makes it vital for Congress to weigh in quickly with its own views on affirmative action. “You’ll now see all kinds of challenges and litigation moving through district appeals courts, all the way to Supreme Court,” Canady said.

But Democratic proponents of affirmative action on Monday said that the court’s ruling had increased pressure on the White House to act, and to do so quickly, before Congressional Republicans seize the initiative.

“It is perhaps even more important that the President take time to delineate a vision and a course of action . . . as only the President can do,” said Rep. Kweisi Mfume, (D-Md.) former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mfume, focusing on one of the majority opinion’s few comments that could be construed as justifying existing programs, lauded the court for acknowledging that “race discrimination is real and government has a role in eradicating it.”

“For those Republicans who have some notion that they ought to do away with all set-asides in the government because there’s no need for them, the court is saying, that is not correct, there is still,” he said.

Mfume’s positive tone was echoed by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), who said she was “somewhat disappointed . . . but certainly not discouraged” by the stringent standards called for by Monday’s Supreme Court ruling.

“We may have to do a lot more work and it’s going to be a little confused,” said Waters. But she asserted the new standards applied by the Supreme Court would by no means spell an end to existing affirmative action programs at the federal level.

“This ruling suggests that the strict scrutiny standards would have to be met, and that there is overwhelming and compelling reasons out there to meet them. It doesn’t take a Harvard scholar to do that. The group certainly has been discriminated against.”

The author of major affirmative action laws in California, Waters stated that with a simple technical change, California statutes allowing set-asides for women- and minority-owned contractors would be able to meet the standards set out by the Supreme Court Monday.

Times staff writer Janet Hook contributed to this story.