From: shin-jungshik@yale.edu (Jungshik Shin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean
Subject: Re: Political Prisoners
Date: 1 Jan 1993 23:16:50 -0500
Organization: Yale University
NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu

In article <85991@ut-emx.uucp> btlee@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Byungtae Lee) writes:
>From: shin-jungshik@yale.edu (Jungshik Shin) writes:
>
>Instead responding specific cases without complete information, I'd like to
>it clear regarding "Political Prisoners(PP)" issues. I hope I do not leave
>any confusion to netters.
>
>1. The definition and issues in PP.
>
>   I agree the generaly accepted concept of PP is that prisoners are those who
>   are jailed by their political motivation or beliefs.
>
>   The issue I raised was not the definition of PP, but the question whether
>   they have the same moral justification as they used to be before 1987.
>
>   My logic are as follows:
>   If laws were become effective though legitimate means, and if
>   judiciary system have its own indepedence from dictatorship and so prisoners
>   were jailed by the proper trial, PP do not have the moral superiority as 
>   they did. 
>
>   This judgement can not be done by either government selective enforcement
>   or personal definition what basic human rights should be because individual
>   potilitical view can be beyond constitutoin or state quo potitical structure
>    but government cann't.
>
>
>2. Whether law is bad or not, outdated or not?
>    
>    This judgement are very subjective. The reason why I challenged to netters
>    who are saying that Korean labor laws and the assembly and demonstrations 
>    are bad or not perfect is that those laws were written by democratically
>    elected congress and moreover, opposition outnumbered congress and 
>    in addition, for me, those laws are very similar to those of advanced
>    western countries. In fact, mono-union rule for one workplace, the third 
>    the third party intervention,  notice or
>    permission for demonstration and many other issues were the result of hot
>    debates and compromises.  Thus law should be judged by whether we have 
>    legitimate legisitration perocess and free judiciary system.

  Reply to 1 and 2.

    This is the point where we sharply disagree with each other. I don't see
much difference between judicary and legislative procedure in the 5th rep.
and those in 6th rep.(I took examples of Seo-sa-yeon(Seoul Soc. Sci. Res.
Ins.) members FOUND GUILTY in the COURT for their theses and teachers
punished for asking for reemployment of teachers ousted because of teacher's
union) There have been a lot fo Nal-chi-gi of important laws
related to basic human rights  at National Assembly. And most of so -called-
reform legislation were passed AFTER 3 parties merged NOT Before they merged
as you repeatedely mentioned as a basis for justification of those laws. 

>  
>3.  The reason why I raised this question
>
>    For me, building the respect to laws is as much important as the more
>    progressive or more free society is because I feel that there have not been
>    proper repect to laws. I think we can not blame government for violating
>    some laws while we are violating many laws.
>    
>4.  Government vs. Radical (or progressive) forces
>
>    Why has Korean government changed its law enforcement time to time?
>    I think it was partially progressive force's fault. They provided the justification of government's or court's backlash. 
  
  Of course, they made mistakes by providing 'justification' for
government's backlash,but that does not justify government's backlash.
    
>        
>5.  Some minor facts I do not agree with Mr. Shin
>
>    1. Teachers' union got majority support:
  
   This is not a thing one does not agree on or not. Look up old papers with
the result of pole about teacher's union. Definitely, more than half of
Korean want teacher's union with differnce in what's to be allowed for teacher's
union and  what's not to be allowed(e.g. Right to strike).
>   
>
>6. My question for Mr.J.S Shin
>   a.  
> You said:  Please, don't diffuse issues with unnecessary juridical details
>            though it may be what we disagree on most.  
>   Q:Do you think I diffuse issues by this? I said this one asked me how
>     I can explain government's not punishing Chung, Joo Young.
 
   Yes, I think because I don't think what's important is not whether judicary
and legislative system are nominally democratic or not but whether they
work democratically.  See  above (right below item No.2)
>   
> You said:
>      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. 
>   
>   Q: WHAT WASN'T I CONSISTENT?  WHICH MY ATTITUDE WAS DIFFERENT DPENDING
>      THE AUTHOR?  Especially in this thread of yours, I was confused who's
>      who and which was when. 

  I'd rather have used another word in place of 'attitude', which occurred
to me right after posting ,but I could not because of the stupid NNTP 
server/News program I use.  My feeling about your inconsistency may or may
not be due to my unconscious dichotomic view. Now, I am able to quite clearly
see where you stand and what differences we have.   Please, excuse me for any
bad feeling invoked by my remark.  

>
>***
>7. The reasons why I beg netters not name my political attitude
>   
>   a. Whoever labels somebody as a "far-extremist", I think he/she hates
>      the other party's opinion. Why do I have to discuss my opinion with
>       who hates me?  Especially far-exteremist contains pretty much disgrace.
>      It went for Nazzis, KKK's......in the history.
>
>   b. I do not think those who attack other's personal preferences are not 
>      qualified to be intellictual or to be democratic citizen.
>      It also definitely contradict to the defintion of "liberal" or 
>      "progressive". I call them fundamentalist or terrorist. 

   I don't see why I received this reply. Only line that, I think, may have
provoked you in my posting was 'You seem to support....by denying it'. 
Anyway, I absolutely agree with you on this issue. 

>
>Byungtae Lee

   Jungshik Shin

Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean