Response to Korea's Proofreading Woes

To answer the 4 initial questions:
1. Who is the intended audience?
English teachers in Korea, I can't be sure if the audience is specifically non-Korean teachers.  Also, this editorial could be considered an open letter to publishers and proof-readers in Korea.
2. Who is speaking?
A native English speaker who teaches English in Korea.
3. Who is spoken about?
The Korean public in general, Korean publishers, Korean universities.
4. What is the basis of this person's knowledge?
 A native English speaker, living in Korea.  His opinions don't seem to be based on anything more than this.


It only takes a rudimentary understanding of World Englishes to see that the ideas of Patton are remarkably outdated.  He has given no consideration to the development of English in Korea as a unique variety.
In an informal setting, people often joke about the Konglish they see, it's one of the quirks of living in Korea, but to have such ideas published in a magazine intended for teachers in Korea legitimizes these opinions and belittles Korean English as a substandard form.
Patton suggests that native speakers working at universities would gladly take on the role of 'cleaning up' Korean English (for a fee).  He is positioning native English speakers (with very little training) as experts, and Korean speakers of English as inadequate and inept without the help of these experts.  Economically savvy, Patton is working hard to secure work for himself for many years to come yet I wonder how offended or annoyed the research scientists of that government department were to receive unsolicited corrections from a know-it-all? 
With regards to the signs and copy that Patton references, I wonder if he ever considered that he is simply not the intended audience of these messages?  As a privileged 'native speaker' of English, I'm sure it has never crossed his mind that these things just don't concern him; people are communicating around him, manipulating a language to serve their own purposes.
End rant.