By The suicide of former Korean President Roh Moo-hyun is slowly making its away around the global news cycle which includes this article from the LA Times which offers a pretty good round up the life, career, and death of Roh:
He entered the national stage as Mr. Clean, a tireless crusader in a country rife with high-level corruption. He left disgraced, taking his own life amid suspicion that he had been dirtied by the culture of political bribery he had promised to clean up.
The suicide of former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, days before he was expected to be indicted in an influence-peddling inquiry, left the nation grappling today with new and troubling questions about the moral character of its elected leaders.
“He was a two-faced person,” said Kim Seung-hwan, a senior research associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Seoul. “He set himself up as this crusader who was going to clean up South Korean politics.“But he left so many questions about the influence of people around him and whether he himself was corrupt. For Koreans, he left behind a lot of frustration.”
Roh, 62, who jumped to his death from a rocky promontory near his home in the southern city of Busan, also leaves a hard-luck legacy of a flawed leader perhaps too human for the righteous agenda he swore to pursue.
With his emphasis on national sovereignty and independence from superpowers such as the United States, supporters say, Roh symbolized South Korea’s progress toward becoming a more liberal and independent democracy.
But critics say history will not be so kind to Roh, who left office last year after his five-year term ended.
Often contentious and insecure, he lacked the leadership skills to rally a nation that craved a new political direction. He defied conservative wisdom to pursue more lenient policies toward North Korea and questioned his own qualifications for the nation’s top political post. [LA Times]
Make sure to read the rest.
From the Hub of Sparkle comes this picture of police surrounding Roh's memorial at Deoksugung Palace in Seoul. Extremely bad taste shown her by Korean President Lee Myung-bak.
Here are some other links worth reading:
- Roboseyo went out to the memorial at Doeksugung Palace and the police stationed there was just an absolute over kill as picture above.
- King Baeksu has a picture of the memorial.
- More updates from the Marmot’s Hole here.
- Jody Kiely offers her thoughts on this issue over at OFK.
- Stafford at Hub of Sparkle shares his thoughts as well.
4:55 pm on May 23rd, 2009 1
Hey GI, yeah, the afternoon police presence in front of Doksu Palace may indeed have been overkill, but let's not forget that they've been dealing with marauding protesters in Chongno since late January — as well as all last summer — and you know that all the protesters want to do is block streets and traffic and ultimately make their way to the Blue House.
So I'm just wondering, what else could the police have done instead? They can either be "proactive" and risk criticism/bad PR, or they can spend all night chasing protesters through the streets of downtown, which probably would wind up being even more violent and confrontational.
6:17 pm on May 23rd, 2009 2
I won't want to push this idea too hard, but it is interesting to compare Roh's career and the 2002 election with Obama and 2008:
Both were supposedly idealist progressives with a radical streak. Both were lawyers. Roh started out as a human rights lawyer – Obama a community organizer.
Both had short careers in elected office before running for president – which opened them up to charges of not being prepared for the role.
Both rose out of nowhere to win an election. Both supported by a very dedicated core members of the far left. Both having somewhat of a cult of personality following.
Both faced as a final opponent in the election — an aged veteran conservative politician who failed in having enough charisma to win over voters but lost them to the candidate who did (Roh and Obama).
Both had rocky starts right out of the gate likely due to lack of experience and learning on the job.
7:04 pm on May 23rd, 2009 3
EDIT –> essentially a
7:14 pm on May 23rd, 2009 4
“Many of Roh’s problems can be traced to his abrasive, alienating lack of ‘polish’ and a naive, shallow understanding of South Korea’s position in the wider world.”
I think you have a good point here—very perceptive.
7:15 pm on May 23rd, 2009 5
How dare you compare President Obama with your corrupt leader. How darn you!!! What you need to do, is more research!
7:30 pm on May 23rd, 2009 6
Another similarity to Roh and Obama's careers:
Both were elected at a time of widespread misinformation or some such – to where the vote wasn't exactly an informed one:
In Roh's case, the society had whipped itself into a magnificent frenzy of anti-US activity across the board.
For example, when a small group of the usual radical university student union firebombed the guard shack at a small USFK installation in Seoul – TV news crews were on hand to record it.
And when the footage played on one of the three state-sponsored networks – a female anchor said something like, "It's a shame to see that."
And the network had to offer her head on a silver platter a couple days later to appease the rage of the masses who had called or emailed in to complain about how un-Korean she was.
Then, as the presidential campaign wore on, the fact the GNP candidate was considered "pro-American" – and Roh "anti-American" gave Roh the edge he needed to win a very close election.
In the US, Obama benefited from an American journalism that decided it didn't give a damn how much people complained about their bias, they were going to openly seek to get the man elected.
So they promoted him and defended him and whenever possible remained silent on issues that could hurt Obama's chance to win.
7:55 pm on May 23rd, 2009 7
“In the US, Obama benefited from an American journalism that decided it didn’t give a damn how much people complained about their bias; they were going to openly seek to get the man elected.”
“So they promoted him and defended him and whenever possible remained silent on issues that could hurt Obama’s chance to win.”
Oh, this is so true, USINKOREA.
9:46 pm on May 23rd, 2009 8
You think Obama isn't owned by Goldman Sachs and the other oligarchs of Wall St.?
9:51 pm on May 23rd, 2009 9
Actually, McCain and Palin were ahead of Obama and Biden in the polls until Lehman Brothers collapsed in mid-Sept., McCain freaked out and Obama was seen to be "calm and steady" under great pressures, and hence a better leader to take the US out of the economic crisis. That's the conventional wisdom, anyway.
9:56 pm on May 23rd, 2009 10
King Baeksu, you hit the bull’s-eye once again.
10:23 pm on May 23rd, 2009 11
It has come to my recent attention that many of Roh Moo-hyun's supporters apparently have a serious "reality problem."
I went out to have dinner tonight and stopped by Doksu Palace at around 6pm, and there was a massive line of people in the City Hall subway station waiting to pay their respects at the mourning alter-tent set up in front of the palace. The line seriously stretched from the front of the Seoul Finance Center, all the way through the station and then up and out to the main alter.
Anyway, some bald skinny white dude in a suit was filing a report for Press TV near the palace gate and a bunch of Koreans were gathered around gawking at him. Two high school girls turned up and asked each other, "Ooh, BBC? CNN?" I said, "No, Iranian TV. It's not famous." They had a couple of hand-drawn signs that said basically that Lee Myung-bak was an idiot and they "supported" the "candlelight vigils." Perhaps they thought if they could get in front of the camera, they could become "famous" and tell the world what a terrible dictator Lee Myung-bak was.
Anyway, I asked them (in Korean), "So you don't like Lee Myung-bak?" and they said, "No!" I said, "Why not?" They said, "He's a loser! He's a rat!" I said, "OK, but what does that have to do with Roh Moo-hyun?" They said, "Lee Myung-bak killed him!" I said, "No, Roh Moo-hyun killed himself." Then they said, "We're here to support democracy!" I said, "Actually the GNP is almost twice as popular as the Democratic Party, you know?" They said, "No, it's not!" I said, "Look, the GNP's current support is in the 25-30% range and the Democratic Party's support is in the 15-20% range. So if the Democratic Party is the party of 'democracy,' why is it so unpopular?" They said, "The Democratic Party is more popular than the GNP!" I quickly grew bored and said, "You need to read a newspaper or something and get your facts straight." What I probably should have said is, "Stop listening to your muddle-headed KTU teachers!"
So then I was talking to another youngish Korean guy who was cool and had a balanced view of the situation, and asked him how long he thought the protests over this affair would last. A week? A month? He said, "Well, this isn't a protest here right now." I said, "Not now, no, but it soon will be. They were protesting here last night." Suddenly another guy in his thirties butted in and said, "No, they weren't. I was here last night." I said, "So was I. The protesters attacked the police many times. It was a protest." He said, "No, they didn't." I said, "Dude, they grabbed several police off the line and beat them up. I have pictures." He said, "Where? When?" I said, "At 10pm. Right over there in front of that subway exit." He got all stroppy and said, "Well, the police are blocking us!" I said, "That's because for the last four months, the progressive civic groups have been running amok in Chongno and causing all sorts of mayhem." He said, "No, they haven't!" Again, I grew bored of his lies and basically told him to go take a hike so I could continue on with the first guy I had been talking with, who basically agreed with everything that I had said.
So there you have it: Roh Moo-hyun was "killed" by Lee Myung-bak, the Democratic Party is "more popular" than the GNP and the protesters "weren't protesting last night" or doing anything wrong for the past four months, because it's "all the police's fault."
I have no doubt that if I told them the earth was an oblate spheroid, they would counter that it was actually a square and that Lee Myung-bak probably was about to destroy it with the help of the nefarious riot police, because they hate democracy and all freedom-loving peoples.
10:24 pm on May 23rd, 2009 12
You have a noteworthy point. However, I believe there is also significant truth to what USINKOREA saying.
10:27 pm on May 23rd, 2009 13
Correction: is saying
10:45 pm on May 23rd, 2009 14
Well, it looks like it may be another eventful summer. The political weather conditions are beginning to look favourable for the formation of protest funnel clouds.
10:47 pm on May 23rd, 2009 15
I don't think they needed to put them right in front of the palace. It seems like they could have staged them elsewhere nearby as a quick reaction force. If anything violent started then the police could respond.
I think it is a bad PR move by Lee to have Roh's memorial surrounded by police.
11:35 pm on May 23rd, 2009 16
Who cares!? Just another corrupt president like all of them before him and the others that are in power now and will follow. All Korean politicians are corrupt. He took the cowards way out instead of jail. I do not feel sorry for him or his family at all!!!!
11:38 pm on May 23rd, 2009 17
The loose parallel isn't the margin of victory but how both Obama and Roh were fairly unknown dark horses who just kept rising and rising and rising until they actually won.
In the US, Hillary Clinton was the shoe in for the Dem nomination and possible win since no charismatic or galvanizing Republican had shown himself.
But when the media decided that Obama was actually viable over Hillary and the Republicans — Hillary went under the bus and the media sharpened their swords (and threw up their shields)…..all in the name of something noble (to them).
11:48 pm on May 23rd, 2009 18
"…rocky promonotory…"
I guess the word "cliff" wasn't sophisticated enough for the LA Times.
12:14 am on May 24th, 2009 19
Who wants to bet that many heads of state don't attend Roh's funeral because of the corruption?
2:02 am on May 24th, 2009 20
The main difference between Roh and Obama is that Roh was a essentially provincial country bumpkin, whereas Obama is a fairly sophisticated man of the world who lived abroad for several years in his youth. Many of Roh’s problems can be traced to his abrasive, alienating lack of “polish” and a naive, shallow understanding of South Korea’s position in the wider world.
1:57 pm on May 24th, 2009 21
That's why we have VPs. They attend the funerals for tyrants, dictators, and cheats. It's in the job description.
2:35 pm on May 24th, 2009 22
I thought I read somewhere that Roh's family announced they were not going to have a state funeral but a more private one…?…
4:15 pm on May 24th, 2009 23
USinKorea, you're sounding a bit too paranoid here. Obama's primary campaign caught fire early on because he was able to sell his long-standing opposition to the invasion of Iraq, which resonated with increasing numbers of war-weary Americans at the time. Clinton, as we all know, had actually voted in favor of going into Iraq, so that was a big strike against her among the hardcore activist/organizer types. Plus Obama's ground campaign destroyed Clinton's at every turn. In fact, people were pretty much sick of Clinton and the only reason she held on for so long was because of a few manufactured moments that appealed to women voters, such as when she "teared up" at that diner in where was it, New Hampshire, on the eve of the primary vote there. Obama finally sealed the deal during the primaries when he was able to connect with working-class white Democrats, who had previously been suspicious of him because they were either racist or resented his "elitist" ways.
Basically, the US media are owned and driven by corporate interests most of all, so they'll stand behind left or right political candidates as long as they feel its in their interest. Of course there are exceptions like Fox and MSNBC, but that's the general paradigm overall.
5:35 pm on May 24th, 2009 24
King Baeksu,
Paranoid? Where did that come from? Paranoid about what?
Anyway…nothing you write in that first paragraph contradicts what I wrote. The key clause was "When the media decided that Obama was actually viable over Hillary…"
They decided they didn't like Hillary for reasons like those you point out. And when they saw Obama gaining and believed he had what it would take to win the whole thing, they went after Hillary and pumped Obama up with a hell of a lot of cheerleading.
I forget where I read it, but something I read laid out a good case on this point: the writer pointed out how the few negative stories on Obama – like his past (and present) associations – came out early in the campaign — but — later on, the media not only remained silent on those issues but went out of their way to shield Obama on them by saying they were a "distraction" and so on.
I'm not sure how true or false that was in the past, but it doesn't work today — and MSNBC is the perfect example because of the route it's taken and the fact it is owned by GE. During the last of the election, GE was reported to have had discussions with the news branch of the corporation about the bias — but it was a perfect example of a phrase I never quiet understood before — that it was the exception that proved the rule:
Some GE big shots finally complained about the horrible bias at MSNBC — but nothing changed…
6:14 pm on May 24th, 2009 25
"Paranoid? Where did that come from? Paranoid about what?"
Because you're arguing that like Roh Moo-hyun, Obama was elected based on widespread "misinformation" and because the MSM in were "in the tank" for him. Sounds like you're insinuating some sort of liberal conspiracy on the part of the MSM in the US, I'd say.
Look, the MSM in the US hammered Obama pretty hard at many points, such as during the Wright affair and his "bitter" comments in San Francisco. At the same time, Hillary's primary campaign was resuscitated with MSM support at several key points, such as during the "tearing up" incident which helped her win New Hampshire and kept her campaign alive, and I recall that Saturday Night Live gave her boosts on several occasions and seemed to be pretty obviously behind her.
Anyway, in the case of Obama's campaign, I would argue that his ground operation was the decisive factor that helped him win the election. Clinton and McCain had terrible ground operations in comparison.
You want to talk about liberal media conspiracies in the US, tell me why the US media was so obviously "in the tank" for Bush's invasion of Iraq, and why they let the Republican/Rove smear machine destroy Kerry with so many obvious lies and distortions, such as the whole Swiftboating thing to name the most obvious example. More to the point, Bush was such a clueless dolt that there obviously had to have been some kind of media conspiracy that helped get him elected both times. He was not "vetted" at all by the media, and constantly got a free pass by the media at every turn during both presidential elections. He was "elected" to the position of most powerful leader in the world (well, by a negative factor of 600,000 votes) because, basically, he seemed like a "cool guy to have a beer with." Ridiculous.
So give me a break about the liberal bias of the US MSM. They only care about making money and corporate interests, and everything else is quite secondary.
8:28 pm on May 24th, 2009 26
Obama is our saviour. He's gonna bring peace, he's gonna bring freedom…
Obama's gonna change the world!
8:57 pm on May 24th, 2009 27
Amazing
9:47 pm on May 24th, 2009 28
Just quoting the video with the little kids singing!
AAAAAHHHH-MENNNN!!!!
10:00 pm on May 24th, 2009 29
I didn’t see that one. I guess I have been in Korea too long.
12:44 am on May 25th, 2009 30
Still lots of rabble-rousers mixed in with the genuine mourners in front of Doksu Palace tonight. There was a large circle where people were speaking into a sound system and denouncing the LMB regime. Everyone was holding up jet-black "Democracy" placards, the implication being that LMB is "suppressing" democracy again. I even noticed that MBC cameramen and reporters were all wearing little black ribbons in mourning, but couldn't help but feel that it was also a way of showing solidarity with the anti-government agitators. Didn't see any other reporters wearing those ribbons.
Apparently the protester-mourners couldn't give a flying F that Kim Jong-il just detonated another nuke practically in their backyard. Good to see these folks have their priorities straight!
7:57 am on May 25th, 2009 31
King Baeksu put it well.
I am no fan of Obama but I think the differences are far more pronounced than similarities. Roh was fundamentally a political incompetent, as well as a man lacking in intellectual sophistication. Neither charges can be really leveled against Obama.