Korean Job Discussion Forums

Trinny · Joined: 01 Feb 2003

My parents' generation still has nostalgia for the late president Park. My dad never stop praising him for his effort to study economics and apply the principles to the Korean situation. A lot of people of his generation seem to think that Park is perhaps the only president Korea has ever had who is interested in developing the country's economy.

Having said that, where does democracy come in, when people are starved? Political stability comes hand in hand with economic stability. I don't know many countries that manage a successful democracy, while its economy is down the drain. Enlighten me with some examples.

jvalmer · Joined: 06 Jun 2003

Just an aside from this Park love/hate fest. I find it interesting how much the political landscape has changed. The government until the 90's was authoritarian that feircly protected home-grown business groups. The government routinly turned a blind eye and often participated in questionalbe business practices.

In the last 10 years the government has become more left leaning and are extremely aggresive and confrontational with companies like Samsung and SK, in an effort to clean up corruption. Soon, everytime a transaction occurs, CEO and accountants will triple check to make sure their books are clean, so that their faces aren't plastered all over the news due to another scandal. Potentially in another 10 or 20 years, businesses in Korea will be one of the most transparant in the world.

bucheon bum · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

lpcool · Joined: 21 Apr 2003 Location: Seoul, Korea

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Ipcool:

The "defenseless teenagers" remark was a reference to Deng Xiaoping, whom I had compared to Park and whom other posters had taken up the task of defending. As for Park himself, I don't have the names of the people tortured and killed by his regime, but it is a commonly known fact that such things took place (see Poscoe's posts). Even Park's defenders here aren't disputing his human rights record, they are just saying it is a) not as bad as some other dictators', and b) not as important as his economic accomplishments.

As for whether or not Park himself ordered tortures and executions, or whether, as Bignate has suggested was the case with the planned drowning Kim-deajung, they were the fault of overzealous security agents, seems to me irrelevant. They took place under his watch, and leaders are generally held responsible for the actions of their underlings. If it were one day proven that Hitler knew nothing about the gas chambers, that Himmler and Eichmann had kept him in the dark, I doubt that this would make much of a differenece to his reputaion. He had openly promoted a racist ideology, and encouraged his followers to commit acts of racist violence on a regular basis. He therefore bears responsibilty for the fact that some of his followers took his ideas to a more extreme degree than he may have intended. For the record, I do not doubt that Hitler knew about the gas chambers.

minjokmanseh · Joined: 14 May 2003

Ironically, by the sound of it, if it weren't for Park's modernization efforts (whether you agree with the method or not, and whether you like the negative byproducts or not), Korea wouldn't have become a nation industrialized and wealthy enough to pay for young and otherwise unemployable college grads from the US, Canada and the like to come and work as "English teachers".

For those of you who're critical of Park for having poor human rights record. Hmm. Hardly has a single "industrialized nation" of today managed to become what it is today without exploiting and in some cases absolutely decimating other human beings, whatever their origin might be. They happened much more gradually in comparison, and under many leaderships, so the blame doesn't rest squarely on one person.

Before you point your finger at Park for his "brutality", please review your own histories and others' blood and tears that had to be shed in order for you to originate from an "advanced nation".

Just to comment on some of the remarks in this thread that are accompanied with stupendous armchair naivete:

What happened for Korea under Park wasn't a country with a decent standard of living to begin with becoming a wealthy nation. What happened, instead, was a nation with MILLENIA of history STARVING becoming a nation as we know today, all with constant threats from the surrounding superpowers and with an ideological standoff and under a cease-fire.

There's hardly an aspect of life in modern Korea that has not been touched by Park's PERSONAL vision, sweat and heartaches. You name it:

the Seoul metropolitan subway line, Kyoungboo highway, Pohang Steel Corporation, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, Gukkiwon (where you test for your taekwondo black belt), Sejung Cultural Center, the Children's Grand Park, electronics, heavy chemical industry, the list goes on ad nauseum. I hardly believed at first that one man could accomplish so much for a nation myself. But it's true, and the evidence is overwhelming.

Park does leave much to be criticized. But to discredit his achievements as being some triavialities is a spectacular show of ignorance and naivete to put it charitably, and frankly, servile cowardice.

Finally, to quote Makushi:

minjokmanseh · Joined: 14 May 2003

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue

Minjomanesh:

Little time to respond, save to point out that slavery is generally considered to have played a vital role in the rise of modern capitalism(the cotton mills of the industrial revolution and whatnot), which in turn gave rise to the liberal denocracies we know and love. But, does this remove the repsonsiblities of an ethical person, then and now, to condemn slavery?

minjokmanseh · Joined: 14 May 2003

the_beaver · Joined: 15 Jan 2003

It's interesting how long this thread has become. I more or less gave up on it a while ago because it's way too subjective but I'm back.

Basically, if you think that Park's economic performance (for those who believe he can/should be given all or most of the credit) outweighs his human rights abuses then you like him.

If you believe that killing, torturing, and imprisoning people outweighs his economic credits then you don't like him.

An anecdote to illustrate this phenomenon:

Several years ago I was boarding with an older couple and the subject of Martin Luther King came up. Now, most people believe Martin Luther King was a great man as most people say racial equality is a good thing. About the assassination the older woman said "I'm surprised somebody didn't shoot him before." Of course, I was curious for her rationale (and immediately thought racism). But no racism was involved. She was a religious woman and her opinion came from her belief that adultery is bad, but much worse for a minister to regularly engage in it.

In the same vein, the basis for my opinion that Park was a bastard comes from view that people being physically hurt or killed really sucks.

On the other hand · Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue