To declare

The word for making something known formally or officially (~을 선언하다/공표하다) is to declare. Many students incorrectly say "declare to do something." The correct expression is "to declare something " or "declare that subject verb."

• "We need to have leaders of both parties — or Mr. Obama alone if necessary — declare that both violence and any language hinting at the acceptability of violence are out of bounds (New York Times op-ed, Jan 13, 2011)
  
• Policymakers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers (New York Times, Jan 21, 2011)
• North Korea has declared to build up its nuclear arsenals (incorrect): the correct expression is "North Korea has declared its intention to build up nuclear arsenals"
  

improve & change

Today's post is really one of the most frequent mistakes I've seen among my students.

The verbs "change" and "improve" are tricky because they could be translated as either 바꾸다/개선하다 or 바뀌다/개선되다. The problem is, when students see the latter, they automatically translate it using a passive voice construction. This is not necessarily incorrect, but could make your sentence stilted and wordy. Unless you really want to emphasize that there is a third-party do-er, I recommend using the active voice.

For example, for 상황이 개선되었다:

• The situation has improved: perfectly fine
  
• The situation has been improved: this is ok, but makes the reader wonder "by whom?"

Similarly, for 그의 의견이 바뀌었다:

• His opinion has changed: perfectly fine
  
• His opinion has been changed: makes the reader wonder who made him change his opinion
  

collaboration vs. cooperation

I've noticed that whenever my students see the word 협력, they automatically translate it to cooperation. But understanding the subtle difference between collaboration and cooperation will help you take your vocabulary to the next level, and construct a more sophisticated, clear sentence.

Cooperation is when a group of people work together for a common objective. The goal is usually specific and narrowly-defined, so that cooperative parties don't really have to change their individual ways of doing things. For example, a drug dealer may cooperate with law enforcement to get a lighter punishment. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the criminal would work with the authorities on a long-term basis, essentially changing who he (or she, for that matter) is or how he works.

Collaboration is when a cohesive group of people work together for a common goal. It is a kind of cooperation that generally involves sharing responsibilities, learning, and resources, transforming participants' individual approaches for the common goal. In other words, a collaborative relationship is usually more closer and comprehensive than a cooperative relationship. Take a look at the following examples:

• The United Nations Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission concluded that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza was unlawful because of the humanitarian crisis there, and that the military raid on the flotilla was brutal and disproportionate. The Israeli Foreign Ministry responded by saying the Human Rights Council had a “biased, politicized and extremist approach.” The Palestinian group Hamas, which controls Gaza, praised the report and called for those involved in the raid to be tried. Israel refused to cooperate with the panel, but is working with a separate United Nations group that is examining the incident. (AP World Briefing, September 22, 2010): Here, you can't replace "cooperate" with "collaborate" because Israel doesn't have to transform itself to work with the panel.
  
• A novel collaboration between design and geoscience has led to the groundbreaking discovery of what may be the earliest known form of animal life.Bradley Samuels, one of the five principals of Situ Studio in Brooklyn, a firm that specializes in design and fabrication, and Adam Maloof, a Princeton University geosciences professor, met in high school, where they were ski buddies. Despite their different career paths, both men are visual thinkers and realized that the tools and methods of their respective “trades” could be used to expand each other’s worlds. Their joint effort began a few years ago, when Maloof was working on a project involving a meteor crater and recognized that the digital technology that Situ’s designers use to visualize data could be used to map the crater...For Situ Studio, the most exciting aspect of this collaboration is that we were able to successfully employ knowledge developed within an architectural practice to help solve problems in an entirely different field by applying design tools to spatial problems on a completely different scale,” Samuels explains. (New York Times Style Magazine, September 2, 2010): Here, collaboration is a better word choice than cooperation, because the two presumably disparate fields changed their ways of doing things for this project, and shared lessons and methodology in doing so.
  

잘못된 정책

There are many different ways of translating "잘못된 정책" but my students' favorite seems to be "a wrong policy." This is not necessarily incorrect, but many seem to not understand the connotation it carries.

Saying a policy is "wrong" implies moral judgment based on your personal belief and principles, suggesting that the policy is not only misguided and erroneous, but also unfair and unjust. In other words, "a wrong policy" is more of a political statement than an objective assessment. Take a look at the following examples:

• Greece's main opposition leader Antonis Samaras said Saturday that the socialist government has mishandled the economy with a wrong policy mix, but it will abide by international lenders' strictures. Speaking at his first major annual policy speech on the sidelines of the Thessalonica International Trade Fair, the center-right leader said "tough austerity policies could have been avoided had the government acted in time." (Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2010)
• What’s wrong with President Obama and his administration is that they don’t know rights from wrongs. They are more concerned with...[t]he PLO’s rights rather than the PLO’s wrongs. In inviting Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington to restart peace talks after a two-year hiatus, Obama perpetuated the illusion that the PLO has any credibility as a reliable partner. The PLO has repeatedly reinforced its commitment to kill Jews and destroy Israel. For decades, the PLO has misappropriated countless billions in U.S. and foreign aid. Before it gets negotiating “rights” the PLO needs to demonstrate through actions that it is capable of renouncing violence and corruption and that it can honor—rather than consistently violate—any agreement. (Fox News Opinion, September 3, 2010)
  

Had the above texts used words like "misguided," instead of "wrong," they wouldn't have conveyed the strong sense of disagreement as much as the word "wrong" does.

So next time you call something "wrong," keep in mind that it is a strong statement of your position, and make sure to give a better reason as to why it is not right, rather than simply saying it is wrong.

React vs. Repond

There seems to be a lot of confusion about react vs. respond.

To react means to act in response to a stimulus or prompting, close to 반응하다 in Korean. A reaction has a more passive connotation than a response, because people often react to a situation quickly, without much thought. Take a look at the following example:

• An Egyptian billionaire with a penchant for risk is transforming a sleepy Swiss village into a ritzy resort that may one day rival Verbier. Sawiris, 53, made his fortune developing towns in the Middle East. Now he’s betting that a revived Andermatt will compete for skiers with more well-known resorts...Sawiris caught the attention of Zermatt Mayor Christoph Buergin when announcing the project.“I know Andermatt very well and hearing someone coming from Cairo saying he’ll build a resort here, my first reaction was that he must be stupid,” Buergin said in a July 20 telephone interview. “But now I think it’s a very good thing. This is a man with plans.” (Bloomberg, September 1, 2010)

To respond means to show a response to something, a close equivalent of 대응하다 in Korean. More often than not, a response is more calculated than a reaction, with a thorough understanding of the entire situation, rather than perceiving a specific stimulus within the situation. Take a look at the following example:

• A decade ago, Japan was a byword for failed economic policies: years after its real estate bubble burst, it was still suffering from chronic deflation and slow growth. Then America had its own bubble, bust and crisis...In the 1990s, Japan conducted a dress rehearsal for the crisis that struck much of the world in 2008. Runaway banks fueled a bubble in land prices; when the bubble burst, these banks were severely weakened, as were the balance sheets of everyone who had borrowed in the belief that land prices would stay high. The result was protracted economic weakness. And the policy response was too little, too late. The Bank of Japan cut interest rates and took other steps to pump up spending, but it was always behind the curve and persistent deflation took hold...Like their Japanese counterparts, American policy makers initially responded to a burst bubble and a financial crisis with half-measures. I’ve lamented that fact, but at this point it’s water under the bridge. The question is: What happens now? (New York Times, Op-Ed by Paul Krugman, September 9, 2010)

But sometimes to react and to respond are used almost interchangeably as in the following sentence.

• Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who was named President Obama's latest nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court is already being scrutinized by Congressional Republicans, particularly on how she might react to administration policy decisions (Source: Time)

The word react here does not necessarily imply an immediate reaction without much thought. Kagan, then-Supreme Court nominee, would not have risked her career by reacting to policy decisions without carefully reviewing and analyzing them first.

Demolish, Collapse, and Damage

I recently assigned my students to translate short prompts about the floods in Pakistan and the Haiti earthquake this past January. Understandably, the prompts had many words related to 파괴/파손, and there were some common points of confusion.

1) Demolish
To demolish means to tear something down completely and deliberately. In other words, demolishing implies premeditation and complete destruction. It is a close equivalent of 무너뜨리다, 철거하다 in Korean. Take a look at the following example:

• For the fourth time in less than four weeks, Israeli forces demolished the unrecognized Bedouin village of Kafr al Arakib this week. A mix of international and Israeli volunteers return each week to help rebuild, even though Israel insists that the village was built illegally and therefore must be razed (NPR, September 5, 2010)

2) Collapse
To collapse means something falls down suddenly and abruptly, a close equivalent of 붕괴되다, 무너지다. Because the Korean words end with "~되다" or "~지다," a lot of people incorrectly use a passive voice construction (i.e. Something "is" collapsed) in English. Keep in mind that "to collapse," not "to be collapsed," is what you need for "to crumble."

• Relatives of 33 miners trapped underground in Chile have held a ceremony to mark one month since the mineshaft collapsed. They sounded horns and whistles as a flag for each miner was planted in the ground at the estimated time the cave-in happened on 5 August (BBC News, September 6, 2010)

3) Damage
To damage means to harm or injure a person or a property, 손상/파손시키다 in Korean. Something/someone damaged may be impaired and dysfunctional, but is by no means completely useless or destroyed. In other words, to damage and to destroy are not interchangeable.

• Three days after 72 migrants were found dead on a ranch near the Texas border, a local prosecutor involved in the investigation was reported missing on Friday and the office of a national television network in the region was damaged by an explosion, the authorities said (New York Times, August 27, 2010)

surveillance vs. monitoring

On March 30, 2010, I wrote a post about the difference between government control and government regulation. Today's post is along the same line. Although both surveillance and monitoring can be translated as 감시 in Korean, they are used in very different contexts in English.

Surveillance means a watch kept over a person/group, especially those who are under suspicion, such as a suspect or prisoner. Take a look at the following example:

• Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike demanded answers from the Bush administration on Thursday about a report that the National Security Agency had collected records of millions of domestic phone calls, even as President Bush assured Americans that their privacy is "fiercely protected." ... Fifty-two members of Congress asked the president to name a special counsel to investigate the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance programs (New York Times, May 12, 2006)

Monitoring means overseeing/regulating/observing/detecting something by checking it continually and keeping track of it. Take a look at the following:

• Autonomy, the UK search specialist, has launched a product that monitors what is being said on internet social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter. Autonomy argues that as social media come to affect more businesses, they need to spot potentially compromising blog posts, tweets or online comments. (Financial Times, June 16, 2010)
• Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told survivors in the central Indian city that he will head a panel set up to monitor the government's effort to decontaminate the site, which activists say has polluted the groundwater in the neighborhood and led to chronic ailments (Washington Post, July 9, 2010)
  

But note that surveillance in the field of public health may have nothing to do with suspicion. It means a type of observational study that involves continuous monitoring of disease occurrence within a population.

• Surveillance is systematic ongoing collection, collation and analysis of data and the timely dissemination of information to those who need to know so that action can be taken. Tobacco control surveillance includes prevalence of tobacco use, its health and economic consequences, its socio-cultural determinants and tobacco control policy responses and tobacco industry activities. (Excerpt from WHO, Tobacco Free Initiative)
  

정책을 마련/제시하다

A key to writing a good essay is presenting your views without being repetitive. A case in point is 정책을 마련/제시하다. A lot of Korean students repeatedly say "make a policy," but there are many different ways to say it.

To lay out something means to make a detailed plan for something, 자세히 설명하다/계획하다 in Korean.

• President Barack Obama on Monday laid out an overarching new US policy on outer space, calling for more international and private sector cooperation on exploration, climate change and orbiting debris (AFP, June 28, 2010)

To come up with something means to produce, supply, bring forth something, close to 방법을 고안하다, 방안을 마련하다 in Korean.

• Even if the Legislature did pass the appropriations bill, it would still need to pass further legislation to come up with enough revenue to pay for the spending it restored (New York Times, June 28, 2010)

To detail means to report fully and distinctly, close to 방안을 구체화하다 in Korean.

• Many analysts said the austerity plans, which include a rise in value-added tax to 20 percent from next year, would help the UK to avoid ratings downgrades suffered by some euro zone countries. But they added that sterling gains on the back of the budget may be limited as the government needs to detail how it will slash spending, while others were concerned that tightening the country's purse strings may choke economic growth (Reuters, June 23, 2010)
  

To put forth means to propose or present an idea, close to 계획이나 대책을 제시하다 in Korean.

• But I think it's really clear on one point that the American people understand very clearly: They understand that there should be an end to discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions. The proposals we put forth end discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions. The Republican bill does not (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the White House Health Summit, February 25, 2010) .
  

find vs. find out

Although both to find and to find out could be translated as 알아내다, 발견하다 in Korean, they don't mean the same in English.

To find out means to discover the true, often negative, nature of something, or to detect a wrongdoing. It is usually (but not always) associated an offense.

• As soon as she found out (= to detect a wrongdoing) that her husband had been cheating on her, she hired a divorce attorney.
  
• The concerns, fed largely by unease over military operations in southern Afghanistan that are progressing slower than anticipated, spurred lawmakers to schedule last-minute hearings this week to assess progress on the battlefield and within the Afghan government. "The hearing is an attempt to find out (= to discover the truth) what is going on in Kandahar," said a Senate Armed Services Committee aide, adding that Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the panel's chairman, "is particularly focused on whether there has been a change in strategy or timetable for the Kandahar campaign." (Washington Post, June 15, 2010)

To find means to discover/perceive/attain something, usually through study, consideration, or search.

• Scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington at Stanford University synthesized carbon emissions and trade patterns and found (= discover through study) that more than one-third of CO2 emissions related to the consumption of goods and services in developed countries are actually emitted outside their national borders. (Time, March 9, 2010)
• I finally found (= discover through search) my sister's journal in her dresser. I am so tempted to read it, but she will get very upset if she finds it out (= detect a wrongdoing; "it" refers to the fact that I read her journal).
  
  

"criticize that"

Another word choice mistake I have seen from Korean students is the term "criticize that"; for example, "he criticized that she had been unfaithful." However, "criticize that" is not correct. The word "criticize" means to speak badly of someone's actions - the focus being on the fact that they did the bad action. While you can't "criticize that" someone did a certain thing, you can "criticize/blame them for doing it", "accuse them of doing it", or "assert that they did it". These all have different meanings:

• Pyeongyang's Naval command criticized that South Korea’s “reckless military provocation” was an attempt to maintain the Northern Limit Line(NLL). (x - does not make sense)
• Pyeongyang's Naval command asserted that South Korea’s “reckless military provocation” was an attempt to maintain the Northern Limit Line(NLL). (o - this means that North Korea is arguing that the provocation was an attempt to maintain the NLL)
• Pyeongyang's Naval command accused South Korea of “reckless military provocation”, in an attempt to maintain the Northern Limit Line(NLL). (o - this means that North Korea accused South Korea of taking provocative actions on purpose, in order to further the goal of maintaining the NLL)
• Pyeongyang's Naval command criticized South Korea’s “reckless military provocation” as an attempt to maintain the Northern Limit Line(NLL). (o - this means that the North sees the South's "provocation" as a bad thing, and interpreted it to be an attempt to maintain the NLL)

확인하다: confirm vs. identify

To identify means to recognize something/someone as being a particular person or thing. When you identify AAA as BBB, it means AAA가 BBB임을 확인하다. Take a look at the following example:

• The victim of last night's car car crash was identified as a two-year-old girl from Korea: 지난 밤 자동차 사고의 피해자는 2세 한국 여아로 확인되었다.
  
• It has not been determined whether the recent sinking is related to North Korea: 북한이 최근 침몰에 연루되었는지는 확인되지 않았다. In this sentence, you should not use "identify" as you are not trying to figure out how exactly North Korea was involved. You don't even know whether North Korea was involved or not. You can say you identify North Korea "as an instigator," but you can't say you "identify North Korea."

To confirm means to establish the accuracy of something or acknowledge something with definite assurance, (무엇이 사실임을 공식적으로) 확인하다.

• [Commodore Lee Ki-Sik] did confirm reports in the South Korean news media that another South Korean ship had fired warning shots around the time the [Cheonan] was damaged after detecting an unidentified object on its radar (New York Times, March 26, 2010): 이기식 준장은 천안함 폭발 무렵 레이더에 미상의 물체가 포착되어 다른 초계함이 경고사격을 했다는 한국 언론의 보도가 사실임을 확인하였다.
  

In this sentence, the Commodore is confirming that the news reports are accurate, so you should say "confirm," not "identify."

인정하다: admit vs. recognize

Both to admit and to recognize can be translated as 인정하다 in Korean, but they don't mean the same thing.

To admit means to confess one's guilt, 잘못을 (마지못해) 시인하다 in Korean.

• Fast-food chain KFC has admitted breaching hygiene rules at one of its busiest branches in Britain (BBC, April 8, 1010): 패스트푸드 체인 KFC는 영국에서 가장 분주한 KFC 매장 중 한 곳이 위생 규범을 어겼음을 시인하였다.

To recognize means to realize/perceive/understand, 존재나 사실을 인식하다 in Korean.

• In adopting its resolution on the observance of Women's Day, the General Assembly cited two reasons: to recognize the fact that securing peace and social progress and the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms require the active participation, equality and development of women... (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/feature/iwd/): 유엔 총회는 여성의 날을 기념하여 결의안을 채택하면서, 결의안 채택의 두 가지 동기를 언급하였다. 첫 째는 평화와 사회적 진보를 보장하고 인권과 근본적인 자유를 완전히 누리기 위해서는 여성들의 적극적인 참여와 평등, 발전이 필요하다는 사실을 인식하기 위함이다.

So if you say "KFC recognized its mistakes," it means KFC discovered mistakes that it was not aware of before. But if you say "KFC admitted its mistakes," it suggests that KFC was already aware of its problems, but did not acknowledge it publicly.

일축하다: dismiss vs. reject

일축하다 in Korean has two different meanings, and accordingly two different equivalents in English.

When 일축하다 means 제안이나 부탁을 단번에 거절하다, you should use reject or refuse.

• 새로운 사업 아이디어를 제안하였다가 사업 파트너에게 번번이 일축을 당한 후, 둘의 관계는 멀어졌다: After his new business ideas had been repeatedly rejected by his partner, their relationship soured.
  

But when 일축하다 means 의혹이나 주장을 (고려할 가치가 없다며) 부인하거나 더 이상 거론하지 않다, you should use dismiss.

• 한국 측은 자동차 무역을 다양한 산업을 포함한 더 큰 협정의 일부로 보아야 한다며 한미 자동차 무역에 대한 미국의 우려를 일축해 왔다: Korea has dismissed U.S. concerns over the [U.S.-Korea] auto trade, which it said should be seen as part of a bigger deal encompassing a variety of industries. (Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2010)
  

ameliorate/improve

Keep in mind that to ameliorate means to alleviate or mitigate something painful or bad. Similarly, to improve means to bring something into a more desirable condition, suggesting that it was less desirable before. Take a look at the following examples.

• We’re taking an extreme effort now to make sure that we reach a resolution because we are more and more sinking into a deficit situation that we may not be able to ameliorate, and I’m not just going to sit around and let this situation overwhelm the taxpayers of New York (New York Times, May 4, 2010): The author is trying to ameliorate a budget deficit, which is generally considered undesirable.
  
• The Indigenous HIV/AIDS Research Training program, designed specifically for indigenous and other underrepresented ethnic minority scholars, mentors and trains the scholars to design culturally grounded research that will contribute to ameliorating health disparities among American Indians and Alaska Natives in the areas of HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted infections, and mental health (Kimberly Teehee, "Together We Must Face the Challenge of HIV/AIDS in Native American Communities", March 19, 2010): Kimberly Teehee argues for ameliorating health disparities, which is also not a good thing to have.
• Europe's economic prospects are improving slightly, despite worries about government debts and persistently high unemployment (Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2010): By saying "improving," the author implies that Europe's economic prospects have not been so bright.
  

Therefore, when you are talking about a situation that is not necessarily undesirable, do not use "ameliorate" or "improve." The following sentences are some of the mistakes that I have seen very often.

• To strengthen its relationship with the U.S., Korea should renew the mutually beneficial trade agreement: If you said "improve" instead of "strengthen," it would imply that the relationship hasn't been very good. By saying "strengthen," you suggest that renewing the agreement makes the relationship even stronger.
  
• By successfully managing routine multitasking, employees can refine their judgment about information: If you said "alleviate" or "improve" instead of "refine", it would mean that employees didn't have good judgment. By saying "refine," you simply suggest that employees will have even more precise judgment.
  

charge vs. accuse

A common point of confusion: to charge vs. to accuse

To "charge someone with something" means to make a formal claims of wrongdoing against someone, 기소하다 in Korean.

• The police charged him with arson but he adamantly claimed innocence: 경찰은 그를 방화 혐의로 기소하였으나 그는 자신의 결백을 단호하게 주장하였다

To "accuse someone of something" means to allege or blame someone for doing something, 비난하다, 혐의를 제기하다 in Korean. It usually implies that there is not enough hard evidence to substantiate the accusation yet, or that the accusation is not made in a legal or official form.

• Currently on a publicity tour of the UK, Bhutto has given talks to packed houses hosted by luminaries such as Henry Porter, the London editor of Vanity Fair. In India, her book is topping the non-fiction bestseller list. But back in Pakistan, Songs of Blood and Sword has stirred an angry reaction from critics, including several relatives, who accuse her of twisting history to make unsubstantiated allegations that slur the memory of her aunt Benazir, who was assassinated in December 2007. (Guardian, April 29, 2010)
  

come out vs. turn out

When something “comes out,” it means that the entirety of the situation has been revealed to the public (진실이 알려지다, 사실이 드러나다). When something “turns out,” that means something ultimately becomes something else, or something is proved/found to be something else (되다, 밝혀지다). Take a look at the following examples:

• When I first saw the film, it struck me as the most impressively articulated response to the Reagan era I'd seen. Since then it has come out that Moore has -- either intentionally or through lack of skill -- fuzzied the chronology of events, creating the impression that the plant closings and layoffs took place all at once, around 1986 and '87, instead of over a period of more than a decade. (Washington Post, January 12, 1990)
  

• Much of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by US spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, diplomatic sources in Vienna said today (Guardian, February 22, 2007).

to be concerned vs. to concern

Do not confuse "to be concerned about something" and "to concern something."

The active voice, to concern, means to be of interest or importance to, or to have to do with. The correct translation to Korean is 관련되다, 영향을 미치다.

• Climate change concerns us all, because we all need clean air to breathe.
• Medicine is the concern of doctors.
  
• This article concerns the plight of homeless children.

Sometimes to concern also means to cause anxiety or uneasiness, a close equivalent of 우려를 끼치다, 걱정하게 만들다.

• His erratic behavior at school started to concern his parents.
  
• The rumor about the firm's possible bankruptcy seriously concerned its stakeholders.
  

The passive voice, to be concerned, means to be worried/troubled about something, and this is translated as 걱정/염려/우려하다.

• I am concerned about my father's health. He has been smoking two packs of cigarettes everyday for the past 10 years.
  
• The international community is concerned about nuclear terrorism.
  

government control vs. government regulation

This is a very common mistake that I have seen in many essays written by Korean students. Although both "to control" and "to regulate" can be translated as "규제/제한하다" in Korean, there is a subtle difference between the two, and often they are not interchangeable.

Control means to exercise restraint over/to dominate/to command, a close equivalent of 통제하다, 장악하다 in Korean. Take a look at the following example.

• Google’s decision to scale back operations in China ends a nearly four-year bet that Google’s search engine in China, even if censored, would help bring more information to Chinese citizens and loosen the government’s controls on the Web. (New York Times, Mar 22, 2010)

Regulate means to direct according to rule or law/to adjust to a particular specification, a close equivalent of 규제하다, 조정하다 in Korean. Take a look at the following example.

• The Macao government is planning to regulate the building of new casinos in an attempt to curb investment in the gambling industry.

Here, the Macao government is not a dominating authority in a way that the Chinese government is; the former tries to drive the gambling industry to a certain direction through indirect measures including legal restrictions, while the latter imposes itself directly on the Internet through censorship.