[Reporter’s Notebook] Jeju Province's 'Selective Truth' Sparks a 'Second Conflict'

Park Changwon
Chief of Jeju Bureau, Honam News Division

There are growing criticisms that the Jeju provincial government has fueled conflict by selectively quoting only part of the facts listed in the official report for the "Truth Set Straight" information board installed next to the memorial stone for the late Colonel Park Jinkyeong.

Currently, Jeju Province is facing backlash from civil society, which accuses the information board of "turning the assassin's excuses into the official narrative." The provincial authorities' attempts to forcibly remove protest banners have led to direct confrontations with civic groups, resulting in ongoing commotion in front of the memorial.

Jeju Province maintains that "the wording on the information board is based on the 2003 government fact-finding report and is therefore objective." However, after carefully comparing the original report, this journalist found that the administration's claim is a cleverly crafted "half-truth," selectively presenting only one side, which is likely to fuel further controversy in the future.

The fundamental principle consistently upheld by the government fact-finding report (hereafter "the report") in addressing the complex truths of the Jeju 4·3 Incident is "presenting both sides." For issues where the truth is difficult to ascertain or claims are sharply contested, the report refrained from taking sides and instead recorded both perspectives side by side, deferring judgment.

A prime example is the "Orari Arson Incident" that occurred on May 1, 1948. In describing this event, the report gave equal weight to both the police records, which claimed it was "the work of armed groups," and the residents' testimonies, which asserted it was "a fabrication by the police and right-wing groups."

Similarly, for incidents such as the March 1st shooting and the disruption of the May 10th elections, the report included and respected conflicting records and memories from both the military/police and residents. This sense of balance-treating both the records of those in power and the memories of the victims equally-is the spirit that the report aimed to uphold regarding the Jeju 4·3 Incident.

So what about the assassination of Colonel Park Jinkyeong, the core issue of this controversy? The report also faithfully applies the principle of "presenting both sides" in this case.

In the report, not only are the claims of the assassins included, but also the positive testimony of the late General Chae Myungshin (then a second lieutenant), who stated, "Colonel Park Jinkyeong's operations were not indiscriminate massacres, but rather a dual strategy (propaganda operations) aimed at separating civilians from insurgents and saving local residents from death."

In other words, the report includes both the "justification of the assassins" and the "evaluation of a fellow officer."

The problem is that Jeju Province broke this balance when producing the information board. The province omitted General Chae Myungshin's testimony from the report and engraved only the unilateral claims of the assassins-who attempted to destroy evidence after the murder-on the memorial stone as if they were the sole truth. The principle of "mutual respect," so rigorously upheld in other cases, was conspicuously absent only in the case of Colonel Park Jinkyeong.

Even more troubling is the source of these "claims." The key phrases cited on the information board are not from primary sources such as military operation orders or official court transcripts.

Upon investigation, this journalist found that the content was merely a re-quotation from articles like the August 14, 1948, edition of the Chosun JoongAng Ilbo. In an era without recording devices, who can guarantee that a journalist’s handwritten notes from a noisy courtroom accurately captured 100% of the defendant’s statements?

Even if we generously accept the assassins' statements as valid records out of respect for the government report, another question arises: Why was the testimony of the late General Chae Myungshin, who later became a symbol of the national military and is also included in the same report, omitted?

Of the two records presented in the report, discarding the testimony of the most respected soldier-who rests in the soldiers’ cemetery, not the generals’-while displaying only the interview of the assassins as the sole truth is not a citation but a clear distortion.

Above all, statistics are colder than emotions. More than 86% of the victims of the Jeju 4·3 Incident died after Colonel Park Jinkyeong was assassinated (June 18, 1948), specifically from the early winter of that year to the following year. The so-called "scorched earth operations," which entailed mass killings, took place after his death.

In fact, even the report (page 220) notes, "The casualties during Colonel Park Jinkyeong’s tenure as regimental commander were not as numerous as those during the harsh suppression operations in the winter of that year, which culminated in mass executions."

To hold a field commander-who was merely carrying out orders from his superiors-responsible for the atrocities that occurred after his death and to brand him as the "main perpetrator of the massacre" is excessive. Applying such a harsh standard solely to the late Colonel Park Jinkyeong is difficult to understand.

What is even more concerning is that this administrative approach seems poised to expand. Last week, Jeju Province announced via press release that it would install similar information boards at over 10 other military and police-related sites across the island, including the memorial for Colonel Ham Byeongseon. This appears to be nothing short of pouring fuel on the fire that began at the Park Jinkyeong memorial.

When the authorities wield their power to impose an edited "selective truth," those whose perspectives are excluded will inevitably resist. This is not a matter of ideology but of common sense. An unbalanced record inevitably leads to division. The information board now standing in front of the memorial does not set history straight. Rather, it has "re-erected conflict" through administrative arrogance.