On Jan. 18, 2024, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol attended the North Jeolla Province Ceremony. A brief interaction with a lawmaker named Kang Sung-hee ended with Kang being violently dragged out of the room by the President’s security. He was lifted by his arms and legs while another security guard clamped a hand over his mouth. This was caught on a video that has since gone viral, sparking nationwide backlash against Yoon for his security team’s harsh treatment of Kang.
South Koreans reacted angrily in the comments section of an interview with Kang about the incident. “It’s really shocking. Dictatorship. A judgment must be made in the general election in April,” one commentator said. Another added, “As a citizen of Jeonju, I am so angry that I can’t stand it … My blood is boiling. I feel like I’m going back to 40-50 years ago under this administration.”
The head of the President’s security tried to justify his treatment of Kang by asserting that the lawmaker posed a security threat to Yoon. The backlash intensified when Kang specified that he was removed from the event for simply asking Yoon to “change the principle of state affairs,” referring to his general dissatisfaction with the direction of Yoon’s presidency.
This case of excessive force was unfortunately not an isolated incident. Less than a month after the North Jeolla Province Ceremony, an unnamed student at the Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology was forcibly removed by security from a university graduation ceremony for protesting against state research and development budget cuts. Presidential officials once again justified their actions by claiming that their decision was “inevitable” and “in accordance with the law.”
These oppressive incidents are becoming fairly common, raising the question: Was the security team’s reaction to Kang and the student warranted?
I argue that Yoon and his security team’s actions were a suppression of the protestors’ right to free speech, and are part of a larger trend in the rise of censorship in South Korea. The Freedom of Expression Act in Korea “provides for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media.” While the protestors may have caused a disturbance, it was well within their right to raise their qualms with government policies. The security team immediately resorted to physical force instead of asking the protestors to respectfully leave, despite the protestors never acting in a violent or threatening manner. The South Korean government’s response suggested that dissent against governmental policies will be swiftly suppressed.
Prior to the current administration, South Korea saw a period of severe censorship during the Kwangju Uprising under President Chun Doo Hwan, a military dictator in the 1980s. Students of Chonam National University were killed, raped, and beaten by the South Korean military when they protested again Chun’s implementation of martial law. The government listed the death toll from the rebellion to be roughly 200 civilians, but the people of Kwanju insist that more than 2000 protestors were killed. Korea has an unfortunate past of committing atrocious human rights violations in the name of censorship, but since the 1980s South Korea has transformed from a military dictatorship to a democracy. The nation has particularly focused on establishing strong protections for civil liberties, such as freedom of speech. However, the country needs to remain vigilant in ensuring that they continue protecting citizens’ right to free expression in order to prevent history from repeating itself.
Yoon’s acts of censorship may not be as staggering as Chun’s, but they are a representation of the values he holds as president. His ego holds greater importance than the safety of his citizens. Yoon would rather infringe on the right to free speech than hear criticisms against his presidency. He may be the president by title, but he lacks the qualities of a leader.
Moving forward, the government needs to acknowledge their mishandling of Kang and the KAIST student, in addition to making a commitment to listen to the hesitations that citizens have against new policies or the way in which the country is run. South Korea is a democracy. Power is supposed to be vested in the people, political participation should be encouraged, and an individual’s rights must be protected.
An exemplary instance of how Yoon could have managed the unexpected disturbance is Obama’s reaction to a Korean protestor, Ju Hong, during his speech on immigration policies. When Ju Hong interrupted Obama with pleas to end deportation, security tried to remove Ju Hong from the event. However, Obama stopped them, saying, “No, no, no these guys don’t need to go. You can stay there. I respect the passion of these young people.” He then went on to address Ju Hong directly, saying “The easy way out is to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws, but the hard path is to use our democratic process to achieve the same goal you want to achieve, but it won’t be as easy as just shouting.” Obama’s respectful behavior and tactful response toward an opposing party was commendable. Yoon had the option of reacting similarly when Kang confronted him.
The country’s president and its citizens should act as a team. The president must be empathetic to the country’s citizenry, and citizens must be understanding toward a government’s complicated responsibilities that come with ensuring the long-term health of a nation. Without this kind of collaboration and compassion, the “liberal democratic order” that Yoon promised to develop in his inauguration speech is unsustainable. Constructive engagement between dissenting voices in South Korea can allow the country to move toward a more inclusive and resilient democracy.
This situation with Kang Sung-hee is a reminder that we are fortunate to live in a time in which the President may be able to physically silence people by covering their mouths, but he is unable to shut the eyes of the millions that watch through the media. The government can no longer manipulate the narrative. People are able to see, listen, then judge for themselves. The sooner Yoon comes to this realization, the sooner he’ll be able to deprioritize his pride and make amends for his handling of the protestors. Then, the President can reevaluate the kind of person that he wants the country to remember him as.
