The Ghost of "thought-conversion" and "law-abiding oath"
torments Prof. Song 
-voices calls to make this an opportunity to abolish the
National Security Act 

"The government said that I didn't need to "convert" but
insisted that I make the law-abiding oath to accept the
government of the Republic of Korea and follow the rules of
this society. But I could not make such oath. Even if I was no
longer a revolutionist and only an active humanist or a human
rights activist, there was absolutely no reason why I should
throw up something that belongs to my heart in front of state
power." 

This is a passage taken from the book  written by Kang Yong-Ju(강용주) who
had been imprisoned for 13 years and 8 months for the
so-called "the espionage by students studying abroad" case
since 1985. Kang, who had refused to write a "law-abiding
oath”, had been set free in Feb. 1999 along with other 
'conscience prisoners', and the system of "law-abiding oath"
was abolished in July this year following the abolition of the
"thought-conversion" policy in 1998. 

        However, even now, in Nov. 2003, the ghost of
"thought-conversion" and "law-abiding" system still lingers
among us with the persistency of weeds, tormenting an aged
scholar who came back to his home land after 37 years. 
On November 6th, the prosecution authorities made clear with a
statement "since not only is Prof. Song exercising the rights
of silence and being uncooperative with the investigation, he
also does not show any improved sign of regret," that they
will indict him. 
It is not so surprising to hear the word "regret or
repentance"-which would be suitable to be used in a school
classroom- suddenly become the prosecution criterion if you
had followed up with the case. 
Although Prof. Song had declared a virtual "law-abiding oath"
saying that he'll follow the Korean Constitutions and secede
from the Chosun Labour Party (조선노동당) in his press
conference following his arrival, the prosecution authority
ignored it as being an 'insufficient level of regret.' He had
also apologized for his pro-North Korean acts and declared to
abandon his previous position as a 'border-rider (경계인)‘ in
his speech titled  a few days later, adding that he was willing to
give up German citizenship as well. 
However, the prosecution officials maintained the previous
position that "the stronger the level of regret, the weaker
the punishment will be" and that they are 'willing to be
generous in forgiving if an appropriate repentance is shown.'
Even for the repeated gestures of repentance on the part of
Prof. Song, the prosecution insisted that they were 'not
enough' and finally indicted him. 

        By this time, we cannot but be curious of what the
'appropriate level' of regret the prosecution awaiting for is.
It is hardly likely that Prof. Song, who had come back to
Korea himself, who willingly complied with National
Intelligence Service investigation on his own accord, and who
accepted the investigation by the prosecution authority in
more than 10 occasions, has 'the danger of running away and
destroying the evidences." Therefore the attitude of the
prosecution can only be analyzed as having the intention of
coercing an 'admission" of being a candidate committee member
of the Board of Politics of N. Korea, and his
'thought-conversion'. Attorney Lee Jung Hee (이정희) of the
Minbyun-Lawyers for a Democratic Society criticizes that "The
extent of repentance the prosecution is asking for is a public
'thought-conversion' in the form of admission of his past
wrong doings and a pledge to 'fall into the arms of Free
Korea."(*-an idiomatic phrase often used from mid 20th
century-here he used it sarcastically-W.J-*) 

Even if a disposition not to institute a public action-a
reservation of public action- is decided, the Professor will
still be coerced into a 'thought-conversion.' 
According to the regulation of surveillance on a person
reserved of public action, the person 'should submit a pledge
to the public prosecutor within 24 hours after the decision.'

The problem is the content of this pledge; "In being granted
this special grace of being reserved of public action, I
pledge that I shall bury the past and repent to become a
faithful citizen of the Republic of Korea, keeping all the
rules and obeying all the instructions, and thereby submit
this document of the pledge."- Obviously loyalty oath and
declaration of conversion. 

        Historically, the 'thought-conversion' system was
initially made by the Japanese imperialists to coerce the
Koreans who had 'bad ideas' to 'the thoughts of the Japanese
emperor." The Korean government kept and abused this system
even after the end of Japanese colonial regime for over 50
years, pulling off left-wing convicts' nails and pouring red
pepper water into their noses for refusing to convert. 
Although this 'thought-conversion' system had been abolished
due to the reprobation from both in and outside of the country
for 'threatening the freedom of conscience and for the reason
that conversion cannot really be forced concerning the matters
of one's thoughts,' the proceeding law demanding a
"law-abiding oath" of a 'conscience prisoner' when deciding
his/her parole retained a similar concept of the previous
system. 

        The U.N commission on Human Rights had concluded that
our 'thought-conversion' system violates the International
Bill of Rights (International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights), and advised the government to make appropriate
compensation to the victims and take proper measures to
prevent recurrence of such a violation. In the notification,
the commission stated that "Although the Republic of Korea
contend that the system of 'thought-conversion' had been
replaced by 'law-abiding oath' system which is not enforced as
a compulsory measure, 'law-abiding oath' system still has the
coercing characteristics of the previous system." and that
"Enforcement of conversion that limits the freedom to express
one's political view violates the provisions of the right of
equality, the right to freedom of thought and conscience, and
the right to freedom of opinion and expression stated in
Universal Declaration of Human Rights." However, as shown in
Prof. Song's case, both the idea and system of coercing one's
'choice' of thought still remains amongst the prosecution
authorities and the media, and in the 'loyalty oath' for
reservation of public act. 

        The issue of conversion of thought inevitably leads to
the issue of the National Security Act because, as long as the
Act which designates North Korea as 'anti-state organization'
exists, the 'thought-conversion' system that verifies people's
consciences to decide on which side they are, and force them
to declare their thought in public, will retain its efficacy.

This case of Prof. Song in particularly depicts how much the
National Security Act had taken hold of our mind after being
in force over 50 years in this society. The reaction from the
so-called 'progressive side' of the society who had previously
called for the abolition of National Security Act is the
evidence. Those who had invited and ardently welcomed Prof.
Song turned silent altogether when the facts they 'had not
been aware of,' like the Professor having joined the North
Korean Labour Party were revealed. Placed in a position where
they themselves could be taken as 'pro-communists,' they broke
away from the situation saying "You can know the depth of
water to a thousand miles but cannot know the depth of a
person's mind (*-a Korean proverb-*). An arrest and
investigation is the only way to find out the truth."(Na
Byung-Sik, managing director of Korea Democracy Foundation in
a National Assembly hearing), and implored that "As Prof. Song
repents his 'wrong-doings,' our society should generously
forgive him." However, according to their usual conviction on
the issue of National Security Act, they should have contended
that the bad law which is against the Human Rights, cannot be
the basis for punishing Prof. Song, and should have called for
abolition of the law rather than condemning the Professor. 

        In an article written for the internet web site of the
'Special Committee of Scholars concerning the case of Prof.
Song Du-Yul (http://freesong.jinbo.net),' Kim Kyu-Hang
(김규항) deplored the current situation that "It is not a
fight between those who support and oppose the National
security act-it's more like a fight between those who support
and those who approve the act." 
Park Rae-Gun (박래군), an activist of the Sarangbang-Group for
Human Rights said "Under the current circumstances in which
the cold-war powers and conservatives cooperate in coercing
'thought-conversion' by using National Security Act, the
defensive attitude of the progressive side without taking
appropriate actions is, by any reason what-so-ever, a mistake.
We will now begin a more active movement to make Prof. Song's
case as an opportunity to abolish the National security Act
for once and for all." 

        The case of Prof. Song reminds us that we are still in
the 'era of extremes,' divided as pro and con for North Korea.
Our society freely speaks and recommends 'thought-conversion'
without shame. And this case of Prof. Song has become more
than a personal suffering, to become a yardstick for testing
whether Korean society will be able to move a step forward or
a step backward. And we'll have to see who ends up 'regretting
and repenting.' 

From 13/11/03 weekly magazine [Hankyerae 21], by Choi
Hae-Jung, reporter.
Translation by Byun Won-Jung^^;;
최혜정 기자 idun@hani.co.kr ⓒ 한겨레(http://www.hani.co.kr)