By David Tizzard
In a democratic society, one normally assumes that an individual is given certain freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom to assemble. That little space inside our head where thoughts appear and circulate is deemed off limits to the government.
Article 19 of the South Korean constitution declares a freedom of conscience and that no citizen be forced to make public their inner thoughts. It is a sacred place: A sanctuary to which we can retreat from the overwhelming barrage of narratives and messages thrown at us by social media. There is no policeman in our head.
Yet last week in South Korean domestic politics the public was treated to one of the most peculiar stories in the modern age. A politician being elected to a ministerial post was asked publically about his ideological beliefs stretching back to the 1980s.
If that doesn't sound too strange, one needs to consider the identity of those taking part in the Korean inquisition (After all, no-one expects it).
The one asking the questions was Thae Young-ho. Thae was the former North Korean deputy Ambassador to the United Kingdom before defecting with his family to the South in 2016. Thae was elected to the National Assembly as a member of the Conservative Party following his comprehensive victory in the Gangnam district. He is the first North Korean defector to win a constituency seat in South Korea.
Thae Young-ho changed his name to Thae Gu-min while in South Korea -- a name signaling his desire to "save the citizens." He has been openly critical of the North Korean regime since his defection who, in return, have labeled him "human scum".
Despite being an authoritative voice on the North and their diplomatic practices (his book "Cryptography From the Third Floor Secretariat" became a best seller here in South Korea), he was forced to apologize in May of this year having completely misjudged events in Pyongyang.
An absent Kim Jong-un brought a great deal of speculation about his health, his role, the rise of his sister Kim Yo-jong and more. Thae claimed, with some authority, that Kim Jong-un was unable to "stand up by himself or walk properly". Many hung on his words, believing him to be a vital source of information about a state clouded in secrecy and -- more importantly -- propaganda.
However, Thae was shown to be incorrect in his claims as Kim Jong-un popped up smiling at a fertilizer plant a few days later. As a result, Thae said back in May that he would "promise to do parliamentary activity in a more prudent and modest manner."
Last week's events would suggest he might have forgotten that promise. Thae was seen questioning a South Korean politician about his ideological leanings, supposed support of North Korean leader Kim Il-sung, and demanding public statements about what the politician believed vis-à-vis Pyongyang.
Lee In-young is President Moon's choice to take over the position of Minister of Unification following Kim Yeon-chul's resignation amidst the controversy regarding defector organizations and the sending of information into the North and Kim Yo-jong's outspoken response. That in itself was a strange event as the South Korean government acquiesced to Kim Yo-jong's tirade and began preventing NGO's from sending rice, bibles, and other materials to the North.
Lee was a radical student in his youth (who wasn't?) and a leader of a student-led group in the 1980s which was primarily pro-democracy and, for the most part, pro-unification. In 1987, as protests grew demanding direct presidential elections and amendments to the constitution, Lee was a leader of the Korea University student council, and took part in these. For his role, he was arrested and sentenced to imprisonment.
Staunch conservatives see Lee's group, Jeon Dae Hyup, and other more radical ones such as Han Chong Nyun as sleeper groups of Koreans who support the North and look to bring about socialist change. The former was a student-led group; the latter, however, openly supported a Pyongyang-led Korea and was influenced heavily by Marxist readings.
So, in simple terms, a North Korean was grilling a South Korean about whether or not he had supported Pyongyang in the past. And, moreover, this was all happening in the National Assembly.
2020 continues to be weird.
Do we really have a system in which domestic politics are still influenced by a Cold War ideology and Manichean diptychs where the forces of good are set up and opposed to the forces of evil? Furthermore, following Thae Young-ho's questioning, are Orwellian performative pronouncements of one's ideology still of upmost importance?
Lee In-young publically stated during the interrogation that he was not a believer of juche (North Korea's ideology) at the time and neither is he now. That of course didn't stop conservative media such as the JoongAng Ilblo labeling Lee as evasive and ambiguous in his arguments.
Freedom of conscience is important -- and defended by law. However, if people are to take roles in which they serve the public, tax payers probably will want to know the beliefs and ideas of those who are given such responsibility. Both things can be held true at the same time. It is a matter of how these are approached.
If we take a step back, we realize that members of the South Korean National Assembly are arguing with each other about what they believed thirty to forty years ago instead of doing what they are there to do: serve the people, solve the many societal problems we currently face, and make the world a bit better for those who have entrusted them with the responsibility.
The 86 Group (those born in the 1960s and who attended university in the 1980s) and the resulting ideological split still seems to be creating rifts in South Korean politics. But it's 2020. Of course one cannot forget the past or pretend it didn't exist. But the country today is very different from back then - it's now a democracy and the challenges it faces are far different.
Perhaps this was Thae's mistake. He was still overly concerned with the declaration of one's ideological leanings rather than one's actual actions and behavior.
Regardless of one's private beliefs, South Korea needs politicians and leaders that will solve the problems the country faces: youth unemployment, growing housing prices, high levels of suicide and depression, a tanking economy, a problem accepting multiculturalism when it's not white and willing to assimilate, a disturbing amount of digital sex crimes, and gender conflicts.
That, more than anything else, makes it worrying that people who receive tax payer's money are instead grilling each other about their ideological beliefs. Would be nice if they focused on solving some problems instead, wouldn't it?
Perhaps if they forgot about their ideologies for a few minutes they might even be able to work together and, you know, help create a society in which the citizens can be happy and content. Imagine that!
David Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University, where he teaches Korean Studies, and he is an adjunct professor at Hanyang University lecturing in World History and Political Science. He discusses the week's hottest issues on TBS eFM (101.3FM) on "Life Abroad" live every Thursday from 9:35-10 a.m.
_5ea6563a22503.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
| David Tizzard |
Article 19 of the South Korean constitution declares a freedom of conscience and that no citizen be forced to make public their inner thoughts. It is a sacred place: A sanctuary to which we can retreat from the overwhelming barrage of narratives and messages thrown at us by social media. There is no policeman in our head.
Yet last week in South Korean domestic politics the public was treated to one of the most peculiar stories in the modern age. A politician being elected to a ministerial post was asked publically about his ideological beliefs stretching back to the 1980s.
If that doesn't sound too strange, one needs to consider the identity of those taking part in the Korean inquisition (After all, no-one expects it).
The one asking the questions was Thae Young-ho. Thae was the former North Korean deputy Ambassador to the United Kingdom before defecting with his family to the South in 2016. Thae was elected to the National Assembly as a member of the Conservative Party following his comprehensive victory in the Gangnam district. He is the first North Korean defector to win a constituency seat in South Korea.
Thae Young-ho changed his name to Thae Gu-min while in South Korea -- a name signaling his desire to "save the citizens." He has been openly critical of the North Korean regime since his defection who, in return, have labeled him "human scum".
Despite being an authoritative voice on the North and their diplomatic practices (his book "Cryptography From the Third Floor Secretariat" became a best seller here in South Korea), he was forced to apologize in May of this year having completely misjudged events in Pyongyang.
An absent Kim Jong-un brought a great deal of speculation about his health, his role, the rise of his sister Kim Yo-jong and more. Thae claimed, with some authority, that Kim Jong-un was unable to "stand up by himself or walk properly". Many hung on his words, believing him to be a vital source of information about a state clouded in secrecy and -- more importantly -- propaganda.
However, Thae was shown to be incorrect in his claims as Kim Jong-un popped up smiling at a fertilizer plant a few days later. As a result, Thae said back in May that he would "promise to do parliamentary activity in a more prudent and modest manner."
Last week's events would suggest he might have forgotten that promise. Thae was seen questioning a South Korean politician about his ideological leanings, supposed support of North Korean leader Kim Il-sung, and demanding public statements about what the politician believed vis-à-vis Pyongyang.
Lee In-young is President Moon's choice to take over the position of Minister of Unification following Kim Yeon-chul's resignation amidst the controversy regarding defector organizations and the sending of information into the North and Kim Yo-jong's outspoken response. That in itself was a strange event as the South Korean government acquiesced to Kim Yo-jong's tirade and began preventing NGO's from sending rice, bibles, and other materials to the North.
Lee was a radical student in his youth (who wasn't?) and a leader of a student-led group in the 1980s which was primarily pro-democracy and, for the most part, pro-unification. In 1987, as protests grew demanding direct presidential elections and amendments to the constitution, Lee was a leader of the Korea University student council, and took part in these. For his role, he was arrested and sentenced to imprisonment.
Staunch conservatives see Lee's group, Jeon Dae Hyup, and other more radical ones such as Han Chong Nyun as sleeper groups of Koreans who support the North and look to bring about socialist change. The former was a student-led group; the latter, however, openly supported a Pyongyang-led Korea and was influenced heavily by Marxist readings.
So, in simple terms, a North Korean was grilling a South Korean about whether or not he had supported Pyongyang in the past. And, moreover, this was all happening in the National Assembly.
2020 continues to be weird.
Do we really have a system in which domestic politics are still influenced by a Cold War ideology and Manichean diptychs where the forces of good are set up and opposed to the forces of evil? Furthermore, following Thae Young-ho's questioning, are Orwellian performative pronouncements of one's ideology still of upmost importance?
Lee In-young publically stated during the interrogation that he was not a believer of juche (North Korea's ideology) at the time and neither is he now. That of course didn't stop conservative media such as the JoongAng Ilblo labeling Lee as evasive and ambiguous in his arguments.
Freedom of conscience is important -- and defended by law. However, if people are to take roles in which they serve the public, tax payers probably will want to know the beliefs and ideas of those who are given such responsibility. Both things can be held true at the same time. It is a matter of how these are approached.
If we take a step back, we realize that members of the South Korean National Assembly are arguing with each other about what they believed thirty to forty years ago instead of doing what they are there to do: serve the people, solve the many societal problems we currently face, and make the world a bit better for those who have entrusted them with the responsibility.
The 86 Group (those born in the 1960s and who attended university in the 1980s) and the resulting ideological split still seems to be creating rifts in South Korean politics. But it's 2020. Of course one cannot forget the past or pretend it didn't exist. But the country today is very different from back then - it's now a democracy and the challenges it faces are far different.
Perhaps this was Thae's mistake. He was still overly concerned with the declaration of one's ideological leanings rather than one's actual actions and behavior.
Regardless of one's private beliefs, South Korea needs politicians and leaders that will solve the problems the country faces: youth unemployment, growing housing prices, high levels of suicide and depression, a tanking economy, a problem accepting multiculturalism when it's not white and willing to assimilate, a disturbing amount of digital sex crimes, and gender conflicts.
That, more than anything else, makes it worrying that people who receive tax payer's money are instead grilling each other about their ideological beliefs. Would be nice if they focused on solving some problems instead, wouldn't it?
Perhaps if they forgot about their ideologies for a few minutes they might even be able to work together and, you know, help create a society in which the citizens can be happy and content. Imagine that!
David Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) is an assistant professor at Seoul Women's University, where he teaches Korean Studies, and he is an adjunct professor at Hanyang University lecturing in World History and Political Science. He discusses the week's hottest issues on TBS eFM (101.3FM) on "Life Abroad" live every Thursday from 9:35-10 a.m.
