By Michael Bergmann
"We understand that, unlike in usual times, it was not a problem that could have been solved by deploying police or firefighters in advance. As you know well, yesterday there were various disturbances and protests in downtown Seoul, so police troops were dispersed to these places."
Minister for Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min has drawn criticism for this both insensitive and immature attempt to dodge responsibility in the immediate aftermath of the Itaewon crowd crush disaster. It has not widely been recognized, however, that with his ill-conceived first statement, Lee might have unwittingly anticipated much of the search for the deeper cause of the preventable tragedy.
Some commentators have defended the police with the argument that guaranteeing citizens' freedom of movement in the public space has been a core principle of South Korea's democratization. Yes, but the law stipulates, similarly to most democratic countries, that the authorities must not intervene in the free flow of people and events unless there are concrete signs of danger. And that is where judgment, mentality, culture and common sense (or lack thereof) on the side of the authorities kick in.
Lee tried to justify the decision to deploy 6500 security forces to control anti-government protests, which he called "disturbances" even though no incidents have been reported and political demonstrations in Korea are overwhelmingly peaceful, whereas 137 officers were sent, inadequately equipped, to monitor the predicted crowds gathering for Halloween.
Protecting citizens from danger, if necessary from themselves, is not what police "usually" do, according to Minister Lee, even when the danger is quite obvious. Then what do police "usually" do? Protect the state from politically interested citizens, thought to "disturb" the public order in contrast to harmless party crowds? But this cannot be the mindset of security agencies in a democratic country.
I'm not even touching upon the hierarchical structures and how they could lead to a delay of more than three hours from the first emergency calls until a real response was initiated. But my doubts regarding an adequate understanding of police responsibility, in general, grew further, unfortunately, over revelations that police departments are already drafting up "reports on liberal civic groups comparing the Itaewon tragedy to the Sewol Ferry disaster in 2014."
Is monitoring public debate and warning the government against its citizens another "usual" field of police activity? And isn't it worth asking why things go repeatedly terribly wrong in hierarchical organizations like the Police and the Coast Guard in a country where all service-oriented professions, including medical emergency services and even "low-ranking" police "in the streets," are known for their promptness, competence and common sense?
Michael Bergmann (bergmann2473@yahoo.de) is a teacher in Seoul.
 |
Minister for Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min has drawn criticism for this both insensitive and immature attempt to dodge responsibility in the immediate aftermath of the Itaewon crowd crush disaster. It has not widely been recognized, however, that with his ill-conceived first statement, Lee might have unwittingly anticipated much of the search for the deeper cause of the preventable tragedy.
Some commentators have defended the police with the argument that guaranteeing citizens' freedom of movement in the public space has been a core principle of South Korea's democratization. Yes, but the law stipulates, similarly to most democratic countries, that the authorities must not intervene in the free flow of people and events unless there are concrete signs of danger. And that is where judgment, mentality, culture and common sense (or lack thereof) on the side of the authorities kick in.
Lee tried to justify the decision to deploy 6500 security forces to control anti-government protests, which he called "disturbances" even though no incidents have been reported and political demonstrations in Korea are overwhelmingly peaceful, whereas 137 officers were sent, inadequately equipped, to monitor the predicted crowds gathering for Halloween.
Protecting citizens from danger, if necessary from themselves, is not what police "usually" do, according to Minister Lee, even when the danger is quite obvious. Then what do police "usually" do? Protect the state from politically interested citizens, thought to "disturb" the public order in contrast to harmless party crowds? But this cannot be the mindset of security agencies in a democratic country.
I'm not even touching upon the hierarchical structures and how they could lead to a delay of more than three hours from the first emergency calls until a real response was initiated. But my doubts regarding an adequate understanding of police responsibility, in general, grew further, unfortunately, over revelations that police departments are already drafting up "reports on liberal civic groups comparing the Itaewon tragedy to the Sewol Ferry disaster in 2014."
Is monitoring public debate and warning the government against its citizens another "usual" field of police activity? And isn't it worth asking why things go repeatedly terribly wrong in hierarchical organizations like the Police and the Coast Guard in a country where all service-oriented professions, including medical emergency services and even "low-ranking" police "in the streets," are known for their promptness, competence and common sense?
Michael Bergmann (bergmann2473@yahoo.de) is a teacher in Seoul.
![[INTERVIEW] Can art become stable investment source?](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/d9b4b117e5b74f4c931de724ebd2ee68.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Choi Min-sik, Lee Dong-hwi on creating Korean-style noir with 'Big Bet'](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/8b795a8f6b42492db4e8fdc47e9abd8d.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
![[INTERVIEW] Ahn Jae-hong on playing underdog basketball coach in 'Rebound'](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/fe381342632c46bfa6d3245cb475676e.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
