At 10:23pm on Tuesday in Seoul, I was already in bed, alternating between reading a book and watching YouTube cooking reels. That was when South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol declared emergency martial law in South Korea for the first time since 1979.
The imposition of martial law was “aimed at eradicating pro-North Korean forces and protecting the constitutional order of freedom,” Yoon said in an unannounced televised address.
Immediately, my text messages and online chat forums flared up. What the hell is going on? Is this a joke? Can I keep drinking at the bar tonight? Can my children go to school tomorrow? What exactly is the emergency? Utter confusion ensued for the next six hours, until a dramatic sequence of events led to the end of martial law at 4:30am.
That was my first experience of martial law — if that short-lived circus could even be called that — something that, until now, I had only read about in history books. However, even in that short time, I was terrified. The experience woke me up, once again, to the severe, unavoidable reality of Korean division, and I remembered how it can be exploited by our leaders to justify repression and control.
Thankfully, this time, Yoon’s antics were curbed. However, the martial law fiasco is a testament to the instability and resilience of South Korean democracy. It is a chilling reminder that the collective trauma of the 20th-century dictatorship is not simply history.
It is still unclear why Yoon took such an extreme measure. Martial law is defined as the temporary rule by military authorities in a time of emergency, when civil authorities are deemed unable to function. In the past, dictators have declared martial law at times of widespread national unrest and turmoil, including the Korean War. This time, it was a business-as-usual Tuesday; earlier that evening I had been for a swim at a government-run public pool.
Yoon’s measure came at a time of personal and political turmoil for him. Corruption scandals have rocked him and his family; the opposition Democratic Party has just insisted on big cuts to the budget bill, despite the ruling party’s protests; Yoon’s approval ratings are hovering in the 20s — all unpleasant, sure, but stories that do not seem all that surprising in a relatively functional democracy.
In his speech declaring martial law, Yoon expressed clear vitriol for his political opposition, for its “anti-state activities plotting rebellion.” Most South Koreans are familiar with that insidious sort of rhetoric. I grew up with this language and still live with it through my very conservative family in Busan. It is a regular reminder that there is a clear political and generational divide related to the Korean division.
Since the creation of South Korea in 1948 and the official separation of the Koreas in 1953, my elders have endured painful poverty and constant threats of North Korean attacks. They painted anti-communist posters and experienced 16 states of martial law, some stretching for years. That history colored their worldview, creating a black-and-white binary of “us” versus “them,” a fight-or-flight mode of protecting one’s boundaries even by persecuting others.
Like many left-leaning young(ish) South Koreans, I learned to ignore and even laugh at the horrifying violence embedded in the words of my father, grandfather and right-wing hardliners. I just could not empathize with seeing the world through their anti-communist lens. I was a teenager when South Korea embarked on the Sunshine Policy in the early 2000s — a more liberal approach to embracing political detente and engagement with North Korea.
“Those communist demons should be beaten to death,” I recall hearing my hardline conservative relatives say, referring not just to North Korean leaders, but more broadly to those who did not agree with their political views and the views of the leading conservative party. I see echoes of a similar hate and insecurity in Yoon’s speech.
Martial law is designed to suspend normal civil rights, by extending the power of the military. South Korean history is riddled with tragedies whereby martial law justified the brutal censorship of political opposition and civil liberties. Throughout the 20th century, many South Koreans were imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the state, very often under the guise of protecting the country against communist enemies.
So when Yoon declared martial law, many said: “Does he think we are in the Park Chung-hee era?” referring to the South Korean dictator who ruled throughout the 1960s and 1970s. In a chilling historical echo, Yoon announced that media outlets would be controlled by the new martial law committee. Strikes and rallies would be prohibited, and anyone violating the decree could be arrested without a warrant.
In response, my friends and I joked about being censored in our private KakaoTalk chats and making sure Christmas parties do not go past curfew. We joked about how our parents, seasoned veterans of martial law, were already heading to bed, while the kids stayed up in frantic fear.
However, behind the jokes, Yoon triggered a deep-seated historical trauma shared by millions of South Koreans, old and young. Those who lived through decades of dictatorship remembered their terror. Those like me, who have never experienced it, remembered the terror in the stories we have been told. We doomscrolled, looking at images of helicopters hovering above the National Assembly and fully armed soldiers breaking windows to get in.
This time, fortunately, what most people experienced was momentary confusion and anxiety. People are baffled as to why this even happened: Yoon never had a legal chance of sustaining this fiasco. He has been a lame duck president since the last general election, when the opposition won a landslide in parliament. His own People Power Party did not even know about Yoon’s martial law plans, and the party leader publicly condemned his decision. In a rare show of unity, all the lawmakers present at the National Assembly voted in the early hours of Wednesday to reverse Yoon’s martial law. Yoon ceded.
It is unclear what would come next for Yoon. His close aides have announced their resignation. Many say this scandal is political suicide, illegal and unconstitutional. It is highly likely that the opposition would start an impeachment process against Yoon, possibly to repeat the fate of former South Korean president Park Geun-hye, the daughter of Park Chung-hee. She was ousted from office in 2017 after a corruption scandal.
South Korean democracy is still relatively young, having formally begun in 1987 with the end of the dictatorship. Yoon’s antics show that it does not take much to destabilize the system; past trauma can easily become the present. However, there is also resilience. I saw so many South Koreans rallying swiftly and fiercely against Yoon. We now know that our freedoms could be lost in a moment.
Haeryun Kang is a journalist and filmmaker in Seoul. She is currently directing the feature documentary Naro’s Search For Space.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS