Former South Korean President Commits Suicide

[Wolfman]

Roh Moo-hyun, the ex-President of South Korea, committed suicide in a rather spectacular fashion by throwing himself off a cliff while hiking in the mountains. He left a suicide note with his family, stating essentially that he felt he had lost too much face.

This has, understandably, both shocked and polarized the nation. What is interesting to me is reading comments from both western nations, and from Koreans. A significant number of westerners seem to consider his suicide to be evidence of his guilt in the corruption scandal (he was accused of accepting $6 million in bribes while President), and that the 'loss of face' he refers to is a result of being caught.

But most Koreans -- in fact, most Asians -- see it very differently. In Asian culture, suicide has frequently been used as a form of ultimate protest. When a wife tried to convince her husband not to do something she felt would be disastrous, and he wouldn't listen, she'd commit suicide to demonstrate the sincerity and depth of her concern. When people wished to protest against perceived government abuses, they'd commit suicide to demonstrate the depth of their greivance.

There is, in fact, far more loss of face involved in facing false accusations, than real ones -- because if you are really guilty, then you didn't have a lot of face to begin with, so you don't lose as much. It is the innocent man, facing untrue allegations, who loses the most face.

Personally, I tend to side with the Korean/Asian intepretation on this. I don't think that his suicide is evidence of his guilt; I think it is his final scream of defiance in the face of unfair shame forced upon him and his family. His apology isn't for his guilt; it is for the suffering and disillusionment that others have faced as a result of these accusations. A 'true leader' would have known how to deal with or avoid such things entirely; the fact that he did not is a mark of personal failure, and he seeks to take responsibility for that.

It has, understandably, shocked the entire nation. And I'm betting that it leads to a public vendetta against those who brought him to this point -- which, I suspect, was one of his main motivations for doing this. Alive, he'd always be haunted by these accusations, facing rumors and allegations regardless of the results of any investigations (investigations which failed to find concrete evidence to substantiate the allegations); dead, he's a martry, and his 'enemies' are the ones who have to face the rumors, allegations, and shame of public scrutiny.

 

[tomwaits]

How about instead of speculating on the motivations for his death, we look at the actual evidence that he was bribed?

Mr. Roh had acknowledged that local shoe manufacturer Park Yeon-cha gave his wife $1-million, but suggested it was not a bribe. He also said he was aware Mr. Park gave $5-million to another relative but said he thought it was an investment. Prosecutors suspect the $6-million was eventually conveyed to Mr. Roh.

Several former aides and associates also have been questioned as part of the probe into Mr. Park, who was indicted in December on separate bribery and tax evasion charges. Mr. Roh's elder brother was sentenced last week to four years in prison in another bribery scandal.

rrrright....

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I don't think that his suicide is evidence of his guilt; I think it is his final scream of defiance in the face of unfair shame forced upon him and his family. His apology isn't for his guilt; it is for the suffering and disillusionment that others have faced as a result of these accusations. A 'true leader' would have known how to deal with or avoid such things entirely; the fact that he did not is a mark of personal failure, and he seeks to take responsibility for that.

I agree with you partially -- that his suicide isn't evidence of his guilt, and is more to do with his shame over the accusations, but I think there is another aspect to the shame: his entire reputation and life's work was built around him being a "pure" politician -- fighting against corruption, for human rights, transparency, etc. These accusations destroyed that. My guess is that Roh himself was not corrupt, but some key people around him probably were (the evidence seems to indicate that). As the figurehead, though, he saw himself as responsible, and the shame as his own.

It's another nuance in Asian culture in play there, IMO -- the concept of "responsibility" being a bit different than in most Western cultures.

And I'm betting that it leads to a public vendetta against those who brought him to this point -- which, I suspect, was one of his main motivations for doing this. Alive, he'd always be haunted by these accusations, facing rumors and allegations regardless of the results of any investigations (investigations which failed to find concrete evidence to substantiate the allegations); dead, he's a martry, and his 'enemies' are the ones who have to face the rumors, allegations, and shame of public scrutiny.

Roh was the President the entire time I lived in South Korea. I didn't care for him much as a politician, but he certainly deserved better than this.

That said, while it may have been his intent to start a vendetta, I am not convinced it will happen to any large extent. Roh was immensely unpopular when he left office (he made George W. Bush look like a beloved leader by comparison) and really has few, if any, allies anymore, and there is enough "smoke" around the allegations -- his brother was convicted of bribery and is in jail, one of his close friends was already arrested, we know his wife received money, etc. -- that I think any vendetta will be short-lived at best. Besides, Lee Myung-Bak and his associates have already been investigated a couple of times, as it is.

I didn't like Roh after he basically rode to the Presidency on being anti-American, but he moderated his positions a lot as President, and I felt bad for him at the end. His leftist allies turned on him because he didn't become the radical president they wanted, and the Conservatives in Korea never liked him anyway. It's lonely at the top, as they say, but it seemed especially that way for Roh.

My impression of Roh was that he was basically a decent guy who was in way over his head as President.

 

[Wolfman]

RubberChicken,

Thanks for the more 'inside' perspective.

My impression of Roh was that he was basically a decent guy who was in way over his head as President.

Yeah, that's pretty much my impression of him, also.

 

[Puppycow]

I agree with you partially -- that his suicide isn't evidence of his guilt, and is more to do with his shame over the accusations, but I think there is another aspect to the shame: his entire reputation and life's work was built around him being a "pure" politician -- fighting against corruption, for human rights, transparency, etc. These accusations destroyed that. My guess is that Roh himself was not corrupt, but some key people around him probably were (the evidence seems to indicate that). As the figurehead, though, he saw himself as responsible, and the shame as his own.

It's another nuance in Asian culture in play there, IMO -- the concept of "responsibility" being a bit different than in most Western cultures.




Roh was the President the entire time I lived in South Korea. I didn't care for him much as a politician, but he certainly deserved better than this.

That said, while it may have been his intent to start a vendetta, I am not convinced it will happen to any large extent. Roh was immensely unpopular when he left office (he made George W. Bush look like a beloved leader by comparison) and really has few, if any, allies anymore, and there is enough "smoke" around the allegations -- his brother was convicted of bribery and is in jail, one of his close friends was already arrested, we know his wife received money, etc. -- that I think any vendetta will be short-lived at best. Besides, Lee Myung-Bak and his associates have already been investigated a couple of times, as it is.

I didn't like Roh after he basically rode to the Presidency on being anti-American, but he moderated his positions a lot as President, and I felt bad for him at the end. His leftist allies turned on him because he didn't become the radical president they wanted, and the Conservatives in Korea never liked him anyway. It's lonely at the top, as they say, but it seemed especially that way for Roh.

My impression of Roh was that he was basically a decent guy who was in way over his head as President.

Interesting. Even if he himself was clean, if his brother and his wife tried to take advantage of his position, the "protest" could be viewed as a protest against them. This seems plausible to me. Most normal people cannot resist temptation. If they went and did this without his knowledge or permission, they put him in an impossible situation. Now they must live with this shame too. Suicide can be viewed as an act of hostility toward family members too.

I admit that when I heard that he committed suicide and that there were allegations of corruption, my mind jumped to that suspicion. But, absent objective evidence, jumping to any conclusion based on cultural theories seems dodgy. So I agree with tomwaits in that respect.

ETA: Anyone think it was a just a coincidence that North Korea chose this moment to test a bomb?

 

[Wolfman]

Interesting. Even if he himself was clean, if his brother and his wife tried to take advantage of his position, the "protest" could be viewed as a protest against them. This seems plausible to me. Most normal people cannot resist temptation. If they went and did this without his knowledge or permission, they put him in an impossible situation. Now they must live with this shame too. Suicide can be viewed as an act of hostility toward family members too.

Actually, from that perspective...it may not be so much a 'protest against them', as a means of regaining family honor. The shame and loss of face that result from an individual's actions is shared by the entire family; so even if not guilty, he would still lose face, and his family would lose honor, because of the acts of his brother and wife.

By the same token, he can regain some honor for his family (ie. his family name, and his descendants) through an act such as this.

We'll probably never know the full story; but I thought it was worthy of comment (suicide of an ex-leader of a significant country, and it generally goes almost unremarked), and to discuss the different perspectives that culture would put on the event.