From: shin-jungshik@yale.edu (Jungshik Shin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: aftermath of election
Date: 31 Dec 1992 05:55:27 -0500
Organization: Yale University
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <85940@ut-emx.uucp> btlee@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Mr. Byungtae Lee) writes:
>From: shin-jungshik@yale.edu (Jungshik Shin) writes:
>:In article <85862@ut-emx.uucp> btlee@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Mr. Byungtae Lee) writes:
>:>From: sl26@ellis.uchicago.edu (sangjin  lee)
>:>(3) The Problem of the prisoners of conscience:
>:>
>:>         You are talking about at least 5 year ago Korea.
>:    No, I'm sure he has as updated information as you have.
> 
>           I pointed out what his information was not correct. Give me
>           your counter-arguments!           
  My follow-up to your previous article was posted before I read your
next article and  S.J Lee's follow-up to yours.  Anyway, that he has as
updated information as you have was proved in his follow-up to yours. 

>
>:>         Possessing 'Das Kapital' does not violate any law in Korea now.
>:>         Sorry  I had it in Korea.  Without forma form of organization,
>:   No, students with 'Das Kapital' would not be arrested.However, last year
>:graduate students in economics and sociology at SNU were arrested for
>:their theses ,one of which had been already approved as thesis for MA by 
>:the advisor of one of those arrested. The prosecutor insisted that they were
>:arrested NOT for their theses BUT for distributing their theses to general
>:public because the government feared that it would be criticized for
>:oppresing freedom to study (or research, whatever it's called in English). 
>:What difference is there between arresting graduate students for writting
>:theses and arresting them for distributing them?  In whichever case, they are
>:prisoners of conscience, aren't they?  
>
>           I do not have any information to this specific case. In addition, 
>           procecution is not verdict. If a procecutor suspects or believe that
>           any body violates laws, any time he can procecute. You should judge
>           whether or not court agreed that.  Do you have any followups?

   My second follow-up to yours ,though almost identical, had a say about the
verdict of this case. All of them were found GUILTY of what they were
prosecuted for by the court although they were set free on probation.

  How many cases do you know where the court did not agree with prosecutor
in cases involving National Security Law? At the beginning of the 6th
republic under the Chief Justice Lee,Il-kyu, there seemed to be some
progress in applying N.S. Law more narrowly and in accordance with change in
world and S-N relations. But, after Rev. Mun's visit to North, the court
became what it had been before accepting the broadest definition of
anti-nation organization and activity.   
>
>:>         even your adovocate of communism can not be punished. I explained
>
>:  Really?    Park, No-Hae (a famous poet) was sentenced to death or life in
>:prison for advocating socialism and organizing anti-government organization
>:(Socialist Worker's Union:Sa-No-Mang). Incidently, Sa-no-mang vigorously
>:opposes the ideology of N. Korea. 
>:Considering those mentioned above, do you really believe that National
>:Security Law is not a bad law denying fundamental human rights guaranteed by
>:Korean constitution such as freedom of thought and freedom of speech?
>
>             Didn't I say that your communism advocacy can not be punished 
>          without the formal organizaion which are judged to be beneficial
>          to North Korea?   The judgement whether Sa-No-Mang belongs to this
>          category is judiciary decision, nether mine nor yours.
>          I DID that I hate this outdate security law!!!!
>          But my arguments was whether violating this law should or should not
>          be  punished.
>
>:>  why Im/Moon case was different from the other case. 
>
>: To you, they may not be prisoners of conscience,but to many members of
>: AMNESTY international, they are very good examples of prisoners of
>: conscience.
>:  (See December or November,1991 issue of its newsletter featuring Ms.
>:Im). Regardless of whether they violated current Korean law or not,
>:they had been in jail for doing what their conscience ordered them to do 
>:which is not against any basic moral standard. 
>
>         Any concensus about law in a country is the accumulation of their
>         history and cultures. I agree that they are prisnoers of consicence
>         because their initial motivation was political.  Do you remember
>         USA government censored press during gulf war? There is no
>         absolute standard.  
>
>         Here we encounter very subtle problem whenever we discuss about
>         S-N Korean issues.  Isn't North Korea our enemy legally?
>         Do you remember we still can not replace "the cease-fire treaty" with
>         "peace treaty"? In fact, Korean government did not sign the former 
>         either. Legally we can fire any time because we did not agree "cease
>         fire."   I hope you can figure out the implications of this.  
   Everybody knows that and many people have struggled to replace it by Peace
Treaty.  And, both Koreas signed agreement on reconcilation,didn't they?
What's important  is not what's written in the document but  the relation
between S-N in practice and whether N. Korea really has intention and 
ability to invade South again. It is very unlikely that North will open fire
toward South. 
>       
>:>         What aspect of labor laws of Korea is bad now?
>:>         Do you know Korean government recently signed ILO treats and joined
>:>         that organization?  Do you know korean labor acitivity law fully
>:>         suuports all three fundamental rights now?  Do not speak out with
>:>         outdate information. 
>
>: Yes, it's true that S. Korea signed ILO,BUT, its labor laws do NOT
>:conform to full standards of labor rights required by ILO. 
>: For instance, KOrea
>:does not allow teacher's union and does not allow three labor rights for
>:most of civil servants. 
>
>          You are simply repeating what I already said. 
   Please read my second posting you may have already read (sorry for confusion.
I should have canceled my first posting. But, I could not because STUPID NNTP
server I'm using does not allow cancelation of my own articles) to see
difference between what you said and what I like to say.

>          Then how can you explain the denial of teacher's union by the grand
>          court and constitutional court? 
   Denial by the Supreme Court?  Why do you think it took a lot longer than
required for the constitutional court to decide as to whether prohibition of
Labor Union for teachers at private schools  is constitutional or not?  
Labor union for civil servants including public school teachers is
explicitely restricted by law but Labor union for private school teachers is
not explicitely banned in law except by law regarding private school
teachers with an article that matters not mentioned in it is to be entrusted
to laws governing matters about public school teachers. (Hence,private school
teachers cannot form labor union just as public school teachers cannot). The
issue was whether or not this violated one of fundamental right in the
constitution(equal right) because private school teachers are not public
officials and there is no restriction for labor union for non-civil
servants. 
 
>          I supported teachers' union and it is the fact that majority of 
>          Korean, especially parents of students did not support that.
>          Then What should government choice be? Can you blame government
>          actioin to imposing the law? It seemed ridiculous to me too
>         that old people were insisting eduction is not labor but some
>         "noble" and "holy". But what can we do if it is our long cultural
>         inheritance and highest court supported this? Do you think
>         government should obey AMNESTY standard beyond its constitutional
>         judgement?  I was very sad to see they changed "CHUN-KYO-HYUP" into
>         "teachers' union" before they got enough supports from citizens.
>         I did think that it was strategic mistakes of leaders. Another 
>         example of unrealistic approaches. 

   It's NOT true that majority of Koreans are against teacher's union.
   All poles I have seen about teacher's union have had it that MORE THAN
HALF of Koreans supported teacher's union though not all of them  supported
all three labor rights for teachers. (e.g. some of them want right for
strike to be reserved for teacher's union).
  Moreover, do you believe that the government does not allow teacher's
union just because of strong opposition ?  Don't you think that they rather
used that ridiculous(as you said) and outdated thought to justify its
suppresion of teacher's union?  Do you think that teachers are respected at
schools and outside schools by the very people who say teaching is not labor
but noble and holy so that teacher's union is to be banned? Aren't they the
very people who despise teachers most?   
   
   How about punishment of teachers at school who asked for reemployment of
1500 outsted teachers ?  Why should teachers be denied freedom of speech and
freedom of expression?   

>
>           I was not arguing that they are not "political prisoners", but 
>          I was arguing whether they should not be punished or released
>          because of their motivation only because of their motivation.
>          My preference to any political movement has nothing to do with
>          the legitimicy of laws. In addition, if we take account of the
>          changes of political structures since 1987, can we give the same
>          credit or respects or sympathy to those violaters?
>          
>:Did you ever hear that leaders of LEGAL labor
>:union were arrested  IN the PLACE of NEGOTIATION with the owner of company
>:in the US? Of course, that must have happened many years ago,but not now in
>:the US. However, that has happened at least several times in Korea in 1992!
>:Nominally, Korean labor laws seem to gurantee worker's right,but in
>:practice, there are a lot of pitfalls and traps which can be used and
>:actually have been used by government and owners to persecute labor
>:movement.
>
>         Are you talking about problem of laws or problem of selective 
>        application of them?   Can you believe the "Perfect" codes of laws?

   They're just different sides of a coin.
We can have laws with fewer loop-holes than current ones. More than that,
loop-holes in current laws may not be loop-holes in that they were stipulated
for that purpose letting the owners to suppress labor movement using them. 
Anyway, you admitted problem with prohibition of third-party intervention
mentioned in my second follow up in your reply to S.J. Lee's article.   


>        I did not hear these cases. Please give me specific information about
>        any one of these cases?  Didn't owner sue the labor union for violating
>        something?   This is the most case of government intervention.
   I'm sorry I can't give you more details of cases. I would be able to give
you detail if I were  able to access Korean BBS such as PC-Serve and Hitel
which is unfortunately not the case. And I don't have time to go to NYC to dig
up old papers.  

>        Do you remember government did not intervened even though there 
>        were clear violation from union sides in 1987 to encourage the
>        "establishing self-solving capabilities" of interest parties?          
   That's the case only in 1987.
   
   
>
>: (For instance, current Korean law does not allow multiple unions in
>:a single company or workplace, which makes it impossible for workers to make a
>:new union truly representing their rights 
>:against existing 'fake' union obeying
>:faithfully management's 'remote' control. )
>
>         I almost sure it has been changed already.  Samsung was notorious
>         for this trick.
   I don't  recall any change in labor law made recently and I
remember reading about this as recently as last June. That's why
Chon-noh-hyop is not a legal organization,yet. 

>         I can bring different issue here.
>         Do you take account of the fact that in Korea, management or owners
>         virtually do not have the power to fire employees
>         unless you are not  criminal. This is totally different from USA.
>        That's why we see far less pink slips.  We have to judge the labor
>        laws based on our business culture and political balances. I hope
>        I can provide my side analysis regarding this soon. I have plenty
>        of questions especially for socio-political scientists.
>
>:>         How can you explain the arrest of demonstrators in USA?
>:>         Can you explain the difference between the assembly and demonstraion
>:>       laws of two country?  Do you believe that in this crowded cities, any 
>:>         form of demonstration should be allowed? Then why so many anti
>:>         abortion demonstrators were errested who blocked clinics here.
>
>:  Anti-abortion demonstrators violated law or at least prevented others from
>:using their freedom to choose supported by the US Supreme court.   
>
>         So do you agree we have the similar laws to USA?
>         Don't the same things happen when we have demonstrations and 
>         labor disputes?  Who compensated for burnt cars and shops?
    Why not allow demonstration and thus make it unnecessary to use
fire-bottles?   You may argue that students would  still use them  even if
assembly is allowed.  Then, how about assembly of orga. like teacher's union
which is more likely to have peaceful demonstration and whose assembly has
been blocked ?  I partly answered you in advance in my second posting and
Mr. S.J Lee answered that,too in his follow-up. 

>
>: How do you explain that demonstration by pro-government organization is
>:allowed even in the heart of Seoul while one by anti-government organization
>:is not allowed even if it uses all legal procedures for it. 
>
>         You are talking about the selective practice again. In the previous
>         posting, I said that it was not problem of laws themselves 
>         but the problem of power balance.

   Once again, order of posting and time-delay.
>
>:>   
>:>         I am not saying that Korean laws are perfect nor I am supporting 
>:>         Korean government.
>
>:    You seem to support Korean government very effectively by denying it.
>
>           No matter what you think. However,
>           I will not be ashamed to defend Korean government if I think it
>           is blamed unfairly though.
>
>:>  But for better discussion, I do believe we should
>:>         be more specifically informed and more rational.
>
>:  Then, would you please answer my question, why  Chong,Choo-young who
>:  visited N. Korea even BEFORE the birth of S-N. Korea Exchange
>: Law(Nam-Pook-Kyo-ryoo-Hyop-ryok-pob) seemingly without approval from the
>: government ,unlike what you  wrote in your previous posting, was not punished
>: at all.   
>
>           You ignore the fundamental concept which governs this case.
>           The question is whether you respect the sole authority of government
>           controlling N-S issues. In addition, the procecution is the sole
>           right of procecutors legally. There is no automatic procecution 
>           except for only small number of special cases. If procecutors
>           want, he can stop his procecution any time.
>           Sometimes they do not procecute a murderer if they find the proper
>           reasons.
>           Thus, selective  procecution
>           does not violate any laws legally even if you think it's unfaire.
  I never said that selective prosecution constitutes violation of law. 
And, I know well the right to prosecute solely (with few exceptions as in Ms.
Kwon's torture case) lies in prosecutors supervised by the Prosecutor
General(Ki-so-tok-jom-ju-u) and that  they can selectively
prosecute.  Please, don't diffuse issues with unnecessary juridical details
though it may be what we disagree on most.  What concerns you seems to be
whether or not laws were made in (nominally) legimate way and whether they
appear to gurantee civil rights.
>           This judgement comes from the results of violation rather than
>           mere violation. During war, if your citizen smuggles into enemy's
>           country, he/she can be shot. But still government can send spies.
>           
>           Therefore selective procecution does not constitue the concept
>           of "political prisoners" or excuses for violation laws.

 I understand that prisoners of conscience are those in jail for doing what
they believed right to do which is not against any moral standard
irrespective of whether what they did violated laws or not and I think this
is widely accepted concept of prisoners of conscience. 

  As pointed out already by Mr. S.J. Lee, problem with National Security
Law is its obscurity and ambiguity allowing its abusive and out-of-date
applications by prosecutors and judges as shown in case of So-sa-yon(Seoul
Social Science Research Inst.) that I mentioned above(graduate students
prosecuted for their theses and found guilty in the court).

>
>: Final note to add : I don't think the poster of the article you followed
>: up can be more rational than he has been. 
>
>           Fine with me  if you think so.
>
>: Jungshik Shin
>
>           Byungtae Lee
>
>P.S: Please do not bring any naming for my political attitude. If then,
>     I won't continue to respond my opinions any more. This is my begging.
>     Such personal attacks drive me almost crazy. Then I can not be rational.

  O.K. I apologize if a line in my follow-up offended you. However, I would
like you to be more consistent in your postings because I cannot but feel that
your attitude is different depeding on whose articles you're following-up. 

 Jungshik Shin

 P.S. I could not follow-up yours in more organized way due to that I'm
short of time for something. Please, execuse me for ill-organized posting.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean