[Editorial] Another Question about the Identity of the Current Administration

At the Korean Overseas Information Service’s (KOIS) website, there is a posting that says, “The Korean government, along with the civil organizations, has to send an official mourning delegation to observe the 10th anniversary of the death of North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung in order to, at least, show its legitimate effort to remember the occasion.” The KOIS said the writing belonged to a government net-porter (a compound word meaning both a netizen and a reporter), arguing it has nothing to do with the government’s official position, which is hard to comprehend.

The article was selected as “today’s net-porter,” which means the best article of the day, by the government information service. This proves that the government is in some way involved in the selection. The writing also follows the North Korean position on the U.S. Congress’ North Korean Human Rights Act and the full-scale mass entrance of North Korean defectors into South Korea. How do average citizens react to this kind of article spreading through government authorities in charge of national information services at home and abroad? I cannot help but question the real identity of the Roh Moo-hyun administration.

The Dong-A Ilbo editorial once pointed out that the identity of the current government was a crucial issue. President Roh urged not to falsify decisions of the Presidential Truth Commission on Suspicious Deaths (PTCSD) politically, including the claims that North Korean spies, who refused to convert to a pro-democratic ideology, had contributed to the nation’s democratization effort. Then, it is natural for citizens to wonder towards what direction this nation is heading. This feeling of insecurity at home and abroad came from weakened corporate investment and foreign media coverage, which said, “It is a matter of concern that Korea might be heading towards socialism.”

Some ruling party members argued it was just a cold-war ideology used to question the government’s real identity. However, the admiration for Kim Il-sung cannot be considered the same as the peaceful co-existence between two Koreas. Ignoring the human rights issues in the communist country, the government is being anxious lest it would irritate the North Korean hereditary regime, which invited suspicion that it was “pro-Pyongyang or leftist leaning.” I can hardly understand how the government would ever seem to support the North Korean regime not complying with its laws and principles.

I cannot help asking again. What is the identity of this administration? Is it obeying the constitution, clarifying liberal democracy and the market economy, or anything else? The current administration needs to squarely answer these questions.

Kim Soon-duck, Editorial Writer, yuri@donga.com