Be wary of your self-indulgence

The court’s dramatic turns demand that civic society develop more reason and logical thinking on their doubts.

Kim Seung-hyunThe author is the national news director at the JoongAng Ilbo. Roaring outbursts of joy from the wee hours vanished after Korea’s shocking 2-0 loss to Jordan in the recent quarterfinals of the Asian Cup. The Taeguk Warriors were met with angry throws of yeot (Korea’s traditional taffy with the nasty meaning of ‘condemnation’) instead of the usual passionate homecoming after their lethargic performance in the game. The boos largely targeted Team Korea manager Jurgen Klinsmann. Disgruntlement toward his lack of leadership and strategy gushed forward after the team’s utter defeat in the semifinals after a series of hard-won victories. Fans sneered at the manager, who earned the nickname of the orchestrator of “zombie football,” as better fit to be filmmaker than a football coach.

But even fervent critics of the German coach could not dismiss other views. Did Korea really deserve a victory in the Asian Cup amid the football boom in the Middle East? Weren’t Team Korea’s players aware of their weakness? The absence of prized defender Kim Min-jae of Bayern Munich could have damaged the team’s balance at the match. Perhaps the Korean team could have mustered better focus and performance had it faced the archrival Japanese counterpart. Regardless, they have now returned to a sense of reality.

A recent series of surprising court rulings delivered similar rude awakenings. The dramatic turns in high-profile trials have raised serious questions about our judgement. Many people would have been confounded by the Supreme Court’s “not guilty” rulings on the former chief justice and other senior judges, who had been accused of power abuse, and the C-suite of Samsung Electronics charged of committing illegalities for hereditary succession. The bench, comprised of three top judges, could hardly have come to their conclusion on such weak reasoning alone. If so, what really forced the public to be convinced of guilty rulings for Samsung Electronics Executive Chairman Lee Jae-yong and former Supreme Court Chief Justice Yang Sung-tae, not to mention a sure victory for Korea’s national football team at the Asian Cup?

Former Chief Justice Yang was found not guilty of all 47 criminal charges, including abuse of power, negligence of duty and interference with public service. The bench disagreed with the claim of power abuse, “as Yang did not have a direct say in his trial and the judges did not pay heed to his opinion.” The power game in the judiciary branch could have appeared excessive in the eyes of prosecutors, but it did not stretch beyond legal boundaries in the eyes of the court, bringing chagrin to ordinary citizens for branding the courts and judges under the chief justice as colluders over the last five years.

The “not guilty” verdict for Samsung Chairman Lee delivered a similar turnaround. The first ruling came after Samsung executives were charged for illegally merging Samsung C&T Corp. with Cheil Industries Inc. to bolster Lee’s hereditary succession eight years ago before being indicted for multiple additional counts.

But the court ruled that the merger could not entirely serve Lee’s hereditary succession. The bench also did not find the merger process neglectful of the interests of Samsung C&T and its shareholders, and it concluded that the consolidation rather benefitted both parties of the company. The higher court may not reach the same conclusion as the lower court, but we all share liability for pinning the criminal label on the head of a global company purely on suspicion.

Politicians who stand firm for what is right or wrong are unusually muted in recent trial results. Inside, they could be more muddled. Politicians on both the left and right cannot make their usual claims. President Yoon Suk Yeol and his right-hand man and interim leader of the governing People Power Party (PPP), Han Dong-hoon, actually led the investigations into the two high-profile cases when they were prosecutors. But the PPP cannot afford to irk the conservative voters who are pleased with the court’s non-guilty rulings ahead of the parliamentary election in April.

The court’s dramatic turns demand that civic society develop more reason and logical thinking on their doubts. Those with rationality must raise their voices through the cacophony. Society will go nowhere without open-mindedness, with nothing but half-baked accusations and disappointment in store.