NYT criticizes President Park in editorial

By Choi Sung-jin

"The biggest risk to South Korea's reputation abroad, however, is not economic but political, chiefly by Ms. Park's heavy-handed attempts to rewrite history and quash dissent." 

That is the conclusion of a Nov. 19 New York Times editorial titled "South Korea Targets Dissent." 

It was the first _ and unusually direct _ criticism of President Park Geun-hye by the influential U.S. newspaper since she took office in February 2013, reflecting that Park's unilateral governance style is no longer just a domestic issue. 

As the examples of "repressive government initiatives," the paper cited attempts to replace the independently selected history textbooks with government-issued ones, and changes in labor laws that will make it easier for family-controlled business conglomerates to fire workers, noting that tens of thousands of people protested against these last weekend. 

The editorial describes President Park as the daughter of Gen. Park Chung-hee, who was an Imperial Japanese officer in the colonial days and South Korea's military dictator from 1961 to 1979. "Rehabilitating her father's image appears to be one motivation for making sure South Korea's students learn a whitewashed version of their country's history _ especially the period when democratic freedoms were seen as an impediment to industrialization," the editorial states. 

The editorial also points out that President Park is trying to "control criticism and dissent on social media and the Internet." Quoting critics, it links the recent indictment of Lee Sir-goo, former CEO of Daum-Kakao, to an intention to punish him for resisting government surveillance efforts and refusing to curb users' opinions critical of the Park administration. 

On Jan. 13, the newspaper criticized President Park, along with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, as attempting to revise history, warning that the dangerous attempts by the two leaders threatened history's lessons. 

Cheong Wa Dae issued a statement at the time refuting what it saw as the categorizing of the two conflicting leaders into one group. Political analysts here are watching how the presidential office strikes back this time around.