 |
| Courtesy of David Geitgey Sierralupe |
By David A. Tizzard
 |
Releasing people like them a few months before an upcoming election is clearly political. It's all designed to serve a particular purpose rather than uphold the principle of a fair and just law, before which everyone is equal. Law here is being shown to be simply a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself. Moreover, those in power are using and directing the law themselves, rather than bowing before it.
Remember this next time one of the "progressive human rights lawyers" says that anti-discrimination laws or the protection of minorities cannot be legally achieved in Korea, despite having a huge majority in the national assembly, because such passage must be achieved through a "social consensus." We have heard this many times. "Si-gi-sang-jo" in the Korean context means that any such conversation is premature and "social consensus" is a catchphrase hidden behind it, so that politicians on both sides of the aisle can avoid speaking their minds honestly.
But ask yourself, was this latest release of prisoners and expunging of criminal records conducted through social consensus? Or was it merely done by the powerful and with little understanding or care about what the social consensus might be on these issues? Was it done with genuine care and consideration for people's health? Or was it done with an eye on the upcoming elections and personal safety? Particularly coming at Christmastime, it feels like a gift coming from those able to bestow them. Thus, it reinforces the power of the presidency and of lawmakers, rather than helping to create an egalitarian society.
When the citizens of Korea took part in the candlelight demonstrations of 2016 and 2017, they did so because they wanted a society that was fair, a society free of corruption, collusion and of the rich and powerful doing as they please, while those toiling away under brutal conditions face little respite. The current administration seems to have misunderstood, or forgot, what the social consensus was that elected them. If ever there were a mandate of heaven, it was for the ruling Democratic Party of Korea to help make Korea a genuine meritocracy, to reduce the power and influence of the country's conglomerates, to foster an environment for small and medium companies to prosper, to provide affordable housing, to lead the country with moral politicians and leaders, and to ensure better rights for women and minorities.
Maybe these are noble aims, but simply not possible inside a partisan democratic political system. Maybe it's beyond the power of certain individuals to ensure that the law is enacted fairly and just for all. Maybe this is a global phenomenon common in most liberal democracies. Or maybe Korean law isn't actually fair. You can decide for yourself, of course.
Dr. David A. Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. He is also the host of the Korea Deconstructed podcast, which can be found online. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.
![[INTERVIEW] How AmazeVR revolutionizes aespa's LYNK-POP concert](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/4431833759c44bdaa414cb314e90f2fe.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
