In this blog post, we look back at former President Park Geun-hye’s controversial view of history—which sparked debate ahead of the 18th presidential election in 2012—as well as the People’s Revolutionary Party incident and the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation scandal, to examine responsibility toward history and attitudes toward the past.
Everyone has their own subjective perspective and their own perception of the history they have experienced or learned about. The term “historical perspective”—a combination of “subjectivity” and “history”—refers to a person’s understanding, interpretation, values, and ideas regarding history. A historical perspective is not limited to individuals. The historical perspective shared by many people living in the same era becomes the historical perspective of that era and is often used as a benchmark for evaluating individual historical perspectives.
Ahead of the 2012 18th presidential election, there was one candidate who was most frequently associated with the term “historical perspective.” That candidate was Park Geun-hye of the Saenuri Party. At the time, Candidate Park found herself at the center of controversy, making new remarks related to her historical perspective almost daily. It is necessary to examine exactly which events Candidate Park was so closely associated with, what positions she had taken, and how her stance evolved over time.
To delve into Candidate Park’s historical perspective, we must begin with her father, former President Park Chung-hee. Park Chung-hee, who became the 5th President of South Korea through the May 16 military coup, served as the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th President from 1963 until his assassination in 1979, contributing significantly to the nation’s economic growth. However, in the process of achieving economic growth, incidents occurred that drew criticism for undermining democracy—such as the Inhyeokdang Incident and the amendment of the Constitution to enable the president’s prolonged rule. Furthermore, the fact that coercion was involved in the process of donating the assets of the Buil Scholarship Foundation—founded by the late Kim Ji-tae—to the state was later acknowledged by a court ruling. The Buil Scholarship Foundation was later renamed the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation via the May 16 Scholarship Foundation, and candidate Park Geun-hye served as chairwoman of the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation from 1995 to 2005.
The most controversial issues at that time were the People’s Revolutionary Party incident and the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation affair. First, it is necessary to examine the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the People’s Revolutionary Party incident. In a full-court ruling on December 16, 2010, the Supreme Court determined that Presidential Emergency Measure No. 1 was unconstitutional and invalid, and ruled that defendants in cases where unconstitutional and invalid penal statutes were applied must be acquitted. Subsequently, judicial rulings continued in related cases, with past verdicts being overturned or acquittals being handed down through retrials. At the time, then-presidential candidate Park Geun-hye sparked controversy in September 2012 by referring to “two rulings” regarding the People’s Revolutionary Party case. Later, at a press conference on September 24, she stated that past events such as the May 16 Coup, the Yushin regime, and the People’s Revolutionary Party case had undermined constitutional values and hindered the political development of the Republic of Korea, and she formally apologized to the victims and their families.
Regarding the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation, the bereaved family of the late Kim Ji-tae filed a lawsuit against the foundation and the Republic of Korea, seeking the return of property and compensation for damages. In its February 24, 2012, ruling, the Seoul Central District Court acknowledged that Mr. Kim Ji-tae had been compelled by state coercion to donate his shares; however, it ruled that the period for rescinding the donation had expired, thereby extinguishing the right to rescind, and that the statute of limitations for claims for damages against the state had also expired, and thus dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, this ruling should not be interpreted as “a judgment ordering restitution because it acknowledged the fact of extortion”; rather, the court’s judgment at the time was that, while it acknowledged the coercive process, the statutory period for claiming restitution or damages had expired. Subsequently, the survivors’ claims were also rejected in the appellate court, and in 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without a hearing, thereby finalizing the outcome of the related litigation.
However, at the time, then-presidential candidate Park Geun-hye stated that she had no connection to the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation. During a press conference on October 21, 2012, she sparked controversy while explaining the court’s ruling regarding the coercive nature of the foundation’s establishment process. Although she later partially revised her remarks, she maintained her position that she had no connection to the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation. At the time, these remarks led to controversy over whether she accurately understood the court’s ruling. In fact, the court at that time did not rule that there had been no coercion whatsoever; rather, while acknowledging that the shares had been donated under coercion, it determined that the degree of coercion was not sufficient to completely deprive the donor of freedom of decision-making—to the extent that the donation itself would be invalid—and that the period for exercising the right of rescission had already passed. Subsequently, Choi Pil-lip, who had been the chairman of the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation, resigned from his position on February 25, 2013, and the foundation appointed Kim Sam-cheon as its new chairman in March of the same year. Therefore, the statement in the original text—that Choi Pil-lip continues to manage the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation to this day—does not align with the current facts.
As shown above, the legal rulings surrounding the People’s Revolutionary Party incident and the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation issue were not matters that could be explained by political arguments alone. Regarding the People’s Revolutionary Party incident, the Supreme Court ruled that the Emergency Measures applied to the past guilty verdicts were unconstitutional and invalid; regarding the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation, while the court acknowledged that the property had been donated under state coercion, it did not grant the claims for restitution or damages. Therefore, when evaluating Candidate Park Geun-hye’s remarks at the time, it was necessary to accurately distinguish and understand the details of the court’s rulings. While it is true that Candidate Park revised her remarks or apologized, it is also necessary to consider that, in the process, controversies surrounding the court’s rulings and her own perception of history recurred.
At the time, Representative Han Myeong-sook offered an evaluation suggesting she viewed Candidate Park’s remarks positively, while emphasizing that even if there was no difference in action, the fact of the apology would remain on record. I, too, acknowledge the fact that Candidate Park apologized and recognize that she took a step toward communicating with a wider audience. However, I believe that those who will be satisfied with this being recorded for posterity are the people living in the history of several decades from now.
Ultimately, I wanted Candidate Park to practice what she preached at the time. I wonder if the people of South Korea, who have observed the discrepancy between a presidential candidate’s “words” and “actions,” now consider the difference in actions to be more important than the difference in words. Furthermore, a person’s actions naturally stem from their thoughts. Therefore, I believe that consistency between Candidate Park’s words and actions can ultimately be achieved only when she changes her own views—that is, her perspective on history—and I hoped she would take a step further than the stance she took on September 24, 2012, when she apologized for past historical issues. Candidate Park Geun-hye did, in fact, express her apologies regarding historical issues on several occasions thereafter; however, the controversy surrounding the Jeongsu Scholarship Foundation at that time failed to fully dispel doubts about how she perceives historical issues.
Of course, it can naturally be difficult to admit that many things surrounding oneself were wrong and that a significant portion of the affluence one enjoyed was linked to past power. However, if she wishes to stand as a candidate who dreams of becoming the president who will lead this nation as a politician, I believe that dignity is ultimately forged through the people’s judgment. Having a firm sense of principle—that is, a dignified perspective on history—is one of the essential prerequisites, and for Candidate Park, who has led a life distinct from others, fulfilling that requirement is simply more complex and difficult. As Candidate Park himself once said, “If you forget history, history will exact its revenge”; I believe it is necessary for him to come to terms with his past with dignity so that many people can accept it.
It cannot be said that Candidate Park was constantly embroiled in controversies over her past solely because the opposition party kept harping on those issues. The process of resolving the past is an ongoing one, and “public opinion”—which Candidate Park considered so important—also judged that the answers and statements she offered regarding her past at the time were insufficient. While those who dwell solely on the past cannot move forward, attempting to move forward without properly resolving a past marked by mistakes or conclusions that many find unconvincing is also difficult to call true progress. I believe the controversies surrounding Candidate Park at the time served as a case study illustrating the question of how we should remember the past and take responsibility for it.
Although I have mentioned Candidate Park’s past and the controversies surrounding it, I believe the message of this article applies to all of us as well. We all have our own histories; while there are parts we are proud of, there are also parts we are ashamed of. In particular, there are likely moments that are so shameful or that we lack the courage to confront that we have left them unresolved and simply swept them under the rug. But do we really hope to conclude our lives by saying, “I have lived well my entire life,” after sweeping things under the rug like that? Just as Candidate Park once said something to the effect that “justice never loses,” the past we have failed to resolve can haunt us or, in some form, hold us back and lead to our defeat. As students at Seoul National University—who, even within a small group, are likely to become leaders—I hope you will become proud citizens of the Republic of Korea who, unlike some, are not bound by the past. With that, I will conclude this post.
