Holding the “Talk Show to Explore Ways to Improve the Alternative Service System”
By Park Ju-yeon
Published May 17, 2024
Translated by Marilyn Hook
“I really hope that alternative
service will be expanded into the care sector, but right now I’m just in
prison.”
This is how Jang
Gil-wan, who is currently doing alternative service, expressed his
disappointment in the current system at the “Talk Show to Explore Ways to
Improve the Alternative Service System” held at the Seoul Forest branch of
Heyground on May 12th. You might be wondering what the heck he was talking
about. Let’s start with the part related to alternative service.
On June 28th, 2018, the
Constitutional Court ruled that the Military Service Act’s failure to recognize
alternative service was unconstitutional. Accordingly, on December 27th, 2019,
the National Assembly enacted the Act on Assignment to and Performance of
Alternative Service, establishing an alternative to military service for male
South Korean citizens for the first time. In June 2020, the Alternative Service
Review Board was launched as an independent agency under the Military Manpower
Administration, and in October 2020, the first 63 alternative service personnel
were called up for service.
This means it has
already been more than three years since it became possible for those who
refuse military service on religious, moral, or pacifist grounds to choose
alternative service. That first cohort of alternative service personnel called
up in October 2020 was discharged in October of last year.
On May 12th, Hanjumdan held the “Talk Show to
Explore Ways to Improve the Alternative Service System.” The text on the screen
reads, “What kind of place is the Alternative Service Review [Board]? How does
the review work?” (c) Ilda
However, these facts are
not very well known. Since conscientious objectors can now perform alternative
service instead of receiving ‘punishment’ (prison time), the public’s interest
in conscientious objection to military service has also decreased. Since
they’re doing alternative service, isn’t everything okay now? But why are
alternative servicemen still in prison?
There was a gathering of
people with something to say about this little-known system that is in need of
change. Shortly before World Objection to Military Service Day (May 15), Hanjumdan,
an activist group seeking to improve the alternative service system, held the
“Talk Show” mentioned above, which featured active alternative service members
and former Alternative Service Review Board members telling stories that had
never been heard anywhere else.
They keep demanding proof, proof...
review processes that slide into insults and hate speech
Not all conscientious
objectors are eligible for alternative service. In order to perform alternative
service, you must pass a review conducted by the Alternative Service Review
Board. Currently, the number of judges has been reduced to 13, but initially
there were 29 judges recommended by organizations such as the Ministry of
National Defense, the Military Manpower Administration, the National Human
Rights Commission, the Ministry of Justice, and the National Defense Committee
of the National Assembly. These judges perform the review.
Baek Seung-deok, a
researcher who served on the review committee as a conscientious objector
himself and researcher of military service discourse and systems, said, “There
are a total of four hurdles in the review.” First of all, for the document
review, which requires producing a lot of paperwork, the applicant must “submit
their own statement, statements from three references, their school records, and
more.” Afterwards, “investigators from the secretariat investigate the subject
as if they were conducting a police investigation,” and then the person also
undergoes a “preliminary hearing in front of a small panel of judges.” Lastly,
there is a “plenary meeting,” where it is decided whether or not the
application (for alternative service) will be accepted.
Activist Ryu Eun-sook,
another former judge, pointed out, “There are some among the judges who try to
find ‘pure’ applicants.” He continued, “The word purity is actually a very
dangerous word. But there are people who, saying they will filter out that ‘impurity,’
try to find evidence that the applicant is not ‘pure.’ The idea is to find
flaws by asking questions that will put the applicant in a difficult position.”
That's not the only
hurdle. In fact, many of the judges are not very interested in this system or
do not properly understand the various reasons applicants cite for pursuing
alternative service. Activist Ryu Eun-sook said, “One of the applicants was a
sexual minority [a member of the LGBTQ+ community], and some judges did not
understand the term ‘sexual orientation’ itself, which he had mentioned in his
statement. So, they used offensive terms like ‘sodomy,’ or when the applicant
was a vegan, they’d say, ‘Are you really
doing this only because of your eating habits?’” Mr. Ryu emphasized that one of
the problems with the current screening system is that “some applicants
experience truly humiliating situations.”
A promotional graphic for the “Talk Show to Explore
Ways to Improve the Alternative Service System.” In addition to the basic
details of the event, it reads:
|
“Alternative Service Sweet Potato Show: What’s the Point of [Conscientious] Objecting? Revealed for the first time! A talk show that lets you hear stories of the
hard-to-swallow reality of alternative service in prison and refreshing
criticism directly from alternative service personnel!” |
Neither soldiers nor prisoners –
alternative servicemen on the boundary
So what happens after a
person passes this problematic screening process and is selected for
alternative service? The service period for conscientious objectors is 36
months, which is twice that of active duty soldiers. And the institutions in
which they can serve is limited to correctional facilities.
Geon-hee is a former
seminary student who, after participating in various social movements, learned
about conscientious objection to military service at a feminism seminar and
decided to pursue alternative service. Gil-wan chose to conscientiously object
while participating in a civic group, after being part of a feminist club and
the sexual minority rights movement in university. The two discussed their
experiences at the talk show.
The two are currently
doing alternative service in a prison called a “correctional facility [gyojeongshiseol].”
Gil-wan explained his current position by saying, “I’m in an ambiguous
position, where it’s very confusing whether I’m a soldier or a prisoner.”
Alternative service personnel live in barracks, are supervised by service
officials, and have restrictions on their going out and staying out overnight.
The work done by alternative service personnel is not much different from the
work that those who were imprisoned for conscientious objection to military
service used to do. This includes providing operational support for the correctional
facilities or being responsible for cleaning tasks.
They chose alternative
service in opposition to the military's hierarchical structure, war, and
violence, but the reality is that their situation has turned out to be similar
to that of soldiers. Gil-wan pointed out, “Active military service is still set
as the default, and practices and beliefs that question militarism and the
military service system are not well-known or respected.” Military discipline
and rules exist and alternative servicemen are forced to follow them. This is
clear by how “service officials often say, ‘There must be equality with
active-duty soldiers.’”
As a result, the
position in which alternative service personnel find themselves becomes fuzzy.
Additionally, since the majority of alternative service personnel are Jehovah's
Witnesses, many parts of the system were made with them in mind, which further
alienates everyone else. Currently, Geon-hee is the only alternative serviceman
in his facility who is not a Jehovah's Witness. Alternative service personnel
are enduring their time in frustration in a space that “has no education system
related to [service activities more in line with] the pacifist beliefs that led
[them] to choose alternative service.”
On December 28, 2018, before the alternative
service system was created, civil society organizations including Amnesty
International Korea Branch, the Military Human Rights Center, Lawyers for a
Democratic Society, World Without War, and People's Solidarity for
Participatory Democracy protested in front of the main gate of the Ministry of
National Defense in response to problematic elements of the government’s
proposal for the system, such as the 36-month service term and the limitations
on areas in which service could take place. © A World Without War
Is there any reason to limit alternative service to prison work?
There are more than one
or two problems that alternative service personnel have pointed out with the
current system, but the area they expressed their most urgent wish for change
in is the scope of the service.
Gil-wan explained, “It
has been pointed out that the military is a space in Korean society that
hierarchizes the bodies of citizens and creates discrimination against
minorities, and correctional facilities are also a space that is managed in a
similar way.” He also said, “I hope that alternative service personnel can move
into society a little more, and that our existence becomes more visible instead
of being confined to a certain space like now.” Geon-hee opined, “The
alternative service system should be integrated into society a little more.”
Mr. Ryu, the activist and former
review board judge, said, “When we screened those who wanted to do alternative
service, the jobs they wanted were things like caring for people with
disabilities and caring for the elderly in farming and fishing villages,” and argued
that the current system, with its limiting of service areas to prisons, needs
to change. In addition, he pointed out that “the current way of thinking (about
the alternative service system) is still focused on comparing and competing
with active duty,” emphasizing, “We need to think of contributions to the
community not as a competition but with respect for the diversity of
contributions.”
Regarding the point that
the alternative service period is three years, the participants said that
rather than talking about how much time is appropriate, it is more important to
think about what kind of service can be done and how, and how the alternative
service workers’ beliefs and their social value can be
brought into alignment. Gil-wan even made this somewhat bold statement: “If the
scope of service becomes truly diverse, I think it would be okay if the service
period is long.” He added, “One of the big topics in the disability community
these days is deinstitutionalization, so what if alternative service personnel
provided the support that disabled people need to live after
deinstitutionalization? Wouldn’t it be possible to do that and commute to and
from work [living in your own lodgings instead of barracks]?”
Mr. Ryu said, “The
imposition of care work on women is also connected to the Republic of Korea’s
military service system and the structural violence of this society, which is
hierarchized around ‘bodies capable of military duty,’” and expressed the need
for greater interest in alternative service and peace movements.
Original Article: https://ildaro.com/9910
No comments:
Post a Comment