The General Student Assembly votes to demand the resignation of President Yoon
On the night of December 5th, the students of Seoul National University gathered in the fields of Acropolis to demand the resignation of President Yoon Suk-yeol: a protest against Yoon’s abrupt declaration of emergency martial law on the night of the 3rd. “This is the first instance of an imposition of martial law since the establishment of the latest constitution in 1987: an evident threat to democracy,” stated the Student Council President Kim Min-gyu. “The President of our country has an obligation to protect the basic rights of citizens and the democratic process, yet his decision endangered such values. Under martial law, the freedom of press, protest, and speech are limited, threatening the university’s academic freedom and democratic values,” he continued. In response to the— now lifted —martial law imposition, the Student Council called for a General Student Assembly on the resignation of President Yoon at Acropolis field, near the central library. The student body voted on the following statement from the Student Council to President Yoon to resign from his presidential position: “Based on the decision to be made by the student body, we intend to draft a statement including the following points and demand the resignation of Yoon Suk-yeol. Condemn Yoon’s declaration of emergency martial law and hold him accountable for failing his presidential obligation to defend constitutional values. Oppose any actions that disrupt constitutional order, and strive to restore democracy by advocating Yoon’s resignation. Declare our commitment to protect students as Seoul National University’s Student Council. All members of Seoul National University must unite in defense of academic freedom and democratic principles. Through the adoption of this statement, we sincerely hope our university will play a meaningful role in restoring our nation’s democracy. ” (Student Council Statement Pamphlet, Translated by Quill)The General Student Assembly is the highest decision-making body of SNU’s student population. Requiring 10% of the total student body to participate for any decisions to be validated, an astonishing 2,707 students (17. 8%) stood in the fields of Acropolis. Out of the total 2,556 votes, 2,516 voted for the resignation requisition, 4 voted against, and 36 abstained, showing an overwhelming support. A representative from each College Department voiced their support for the resignation request. A student from the College of Education urged others to “remember the spirit of 1987,” stating: “The actions of our predecessors in Acropolis have led to a triumph of liberal democracy, a gift that remains on our campus. Though we may have taken this freedom for granted, we are back here united to demand the resignation of President Yoon… Human life ends with the last beat of the heart, but the life of our nation continues by the martyrs of history; one that will perish the moment we lose the spirit of democracy. ” A student from the College of Social Sciences expressed how Yoon “declared war against his own people,” hence, “He is not my president, nor is a country that legitimizes his presidency. ” Another student added, “Though we are here to condemn Yoon’s behavior, it is not in support of either political party,” sending a message to the press, “do not distort our political beliefs. ” A student from the College of Natural Science not only condemned Yoon’s actions on the 3rd, but also criticized policies imposed during his presidency, specifically the reduction of R&D funding. “For the Resignation of Yoon Suk-yeol” Photograph by Shin Hye-wonGeneral Student Assemblies have been called during significant affairs to collect student opinions or discuss collective measures. The first assembly was held in February 1980 to discuss the future of the Student National Defense Corps and fight for academic democratization, adopting a resolution titled, “Our Commitment to Academic Democratization. ” Later that year in May, another assembly brought 12,000 students to Acropolis in response to emergency martial law to debate the government’s revision of the constitution. While General Student Assemblies in the 1900s reflected the period’s political instability and students’ efforts to protect democracy, the assemblies of the 2000s shifted towards pragmatic, internal affairs. This includes the protests against rise of tuition rates in 2005, opposition to the corporatization of SNU in 2011, and the discussion of the Siheung campus implementation agreement in 2016. During the former President Park Geun-hye scandal, instead of a student assembly, students opted for a class boycott and protest at the Grass Square. University students have been, historically, at the forefront of Korean democracy: from its establishment to its continuation. The General Assembly of December 5th marks a rare yet uniting moment among students, echoing the activism of previous generations. In the fields of Acropolis, the voices of over two thousand students cried with a clear demand: “Yoon Suk-Yeol, resign!” This article was co-written by Hyun Joo-young (Editor-in-Chief) and Kim Ji-woo (SNUS Editor)
Martial Law: What just happened in Korea?
Late night on Tuesday, December 3rd, President Yoon Seok-yeol declared emergency martial law on national television, sending shockwaves throughout the country. All media showed live footage of the military being dispatched to the National Assembly, where members of the assembly were headed to try to nullify this measure at once. The image of police buses barricading the main gate, armed troops and civilians interlocked in a struggle, and lawmakers—including the chairman—jumping the National Assembly gates to get inside the building, was altogether reminiscent of a time when Korea was under authoritarian rule and protesting for democratization in the 80s. Lamentably, the country had to witness history repeat itself in 2024. President Yoon’s move took everyone by surprise. Although the National Assembly managed to lift the martial law in a matter of hours, many questions still remain: why did this happen? How was this even possible? What was Yoon thinking? Where do we go from here? It may not yet be possible to give definitive answers but here, we attempt to shed some light on the past and potential progression of events, Yoon’s rationale and its reception, and a brief history of martial law in contemporary Korean history that shows why this issue holds such significance among the people today. Why did this happen, and how did the events unfold? At around 10:30 P. M. on Tuesday, December 3rd, President Yoon Seok-yeol, in an urgent public address, declared emergency martial law to combat what he described as “unprecedented threats to South Korea’s democratic institutions and national stability. ” Citing repeated impeachment attempts and severe budget cuts by the opposing Democratic Party (the current parliamentary majority), Yoon accused the party of attempting to “overthrow the liberal democratic system. ” He vowed to eradicate anti-state forces and protect the country and its Constitution from “threats of North Korean communist forces,” which he implied is upheld by the opposition party. Subsequently, a martial law command post was established, gaining temporary authority to conduct military and administrative actions. At 11 P. M. , it issued the first decree, the contents of which included the prohibition of any political activities including National Assemblies, rallies, protests or strikes, and strict control of the press and publishing, etc. Notably, Article 6 of the decree singled out all medical personnel, who have been on a long-term strike since the beginning of the year, requiring them to return immediately to their posts within 48 hours. Anyone failing to abide by the decree could be arrested, detained, or searched without a warrant, and would be subject to trial in a military court. Lawmakers rushed to the parliament to take a vote against the martial law. At the same time, soldiers equipped with guns and night vision goggles were also trying to force their way into the building, backed by helicopters and armored vehicles. Whether the soldiers were equipped with live ammunition is still unknown. As the troops made their way from the main gates to the building entrance, civilians and parliamentary aides attempted to block their paths. Meanwhile, lawmakers trickled in, ultimately amounting to 190 members, thus satisfying the quorum. The vote was held shortly past 1 A. M. on Wednesday, December 4th, and the parliament unanimously voted to reject the president’s declaration. The president, after staying silent for two hours, announced at around 4:30 A. M. that he would lift the martial law. In total, South Korea was under martial law for around six hours. What is martial law, and how does it work? Martial law signifies military rule, or military control of civilian government affairs in times of national emergency in order to maintain public well-being and safety. It is classified into two types: guarding and emergency martial law. The former allows the martial commander to have control over matters related to the military; the latter, in contrast, gives the commander total control of all administrative and legislative matters, including civil ones. Essentially, under emergency martial law, the President gains full control over all branches of the state. The latter, a more escalated type of martial law, was the one President Yoon had declared. Article 77 of the Korean Constitution states that the President may proclaim martial law under grave national emergencies—“war, armed conflict, or a similar national emergency”—in order to maintain public safety and order. The President is required to report this decision to the National Assembly immediately. The same article also states the right of the parliament to request the lifting of martial law with the vote of a majority of the total members of the National Assembly. Upon receiving such a request, the President is bound by the Constitution to comply. The Constitution hence ensures the separation of powers: declaring martial law is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, and lifting it falls under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. When has martial law been declared in the past? Martial law was declared for the first time in Korea in 1948, and has since been declared a total of 16 times—12 being emergency martial law, and 4 being guarding martial law. Most recently in history, martial law was declared on May 17th, 1980 following a coup d'état, shortly after which countless civilians were killed by the state’s armed forces during a protest against the coup in the southern city of Gwangju. The “5. 18 Gwangju democratization movement” was a tragic yet pivotal moment in Korean history, which has served as a hallmark of the Nation’s fight for democracy. Martial law had not been declared by any president since then. That makes the emergency martial law decreed by President Yoon on Tuesday the first of its kind in 44 years, the first one in the 21st century. What do people think? What’s next? The Republic of Korea is home to a hard-earned democracy, having been through a turbulent period of military dictatorship and violent transfers of power throughout its history. For a significant portion of the population, the struggle of democratization is still clearly etched into memory. The younger generation, in turn, has heard enough stories from parents and grandparents to know the gravity of the issue. Naturally, the subject of authoritarianism is a sore spot—one that the country thought had already healed from, but was cut wide open by these recent events. The country is deeply perplexed as to what exactly Yoon intended to achieve through this seemingly rushed decision. Many are interpreting his move as a desperate Hail Mary, as the President was increasingly backed into a corner by the opposing party and was facing a crisis in his political career. Others believe that he had an elaborate plan in mind, which didn’t come to fruition because of the military’s lackluster performance. In any case, the most important question to be asked is the legality of Yoon’s decision and its execution. Was the situation at hand—“severe political opposition” and vaguely-worded references to “North Korean threats”—so substantial as to satisfy the condition of “war, armed conflict or a similar national emergency,” as stated in the Constitution? Wasn’t his decision to prohibit all political activities, including that of the National Assembly, a fundamental violation of the separation of powers? With further investigation revealing more evidence that the President may have acted in violation of the Martial Law Act, the Democratic Party now believes there are more than enough grounds for impeachment. They are set to take this matter to a vote as early as this Friday. Meanwhile, concerns of dictatorship and the ‘backsliding’ of democracy ring loud and clear amongst the Koreans—alarmed citizens are flocking to Gwanghwamun, demanding for Yoon to step down or to be arrested for insurrection. The students of Seoul National University, Yoon’s alma mater, are also raising their voices by issuing statements and gathering on campus to call for Yoon to be stripped of office. Korean society is putting up a united front to defend our democracy and our rights. The people have spoken, but whether Yoon will listen, remains to be seen.
A YouTube Case Study: Nikocado Avocado
“I am always two steps ahead…”Nicholas Perry (known as Nikocado Avocado, with 4. 5 million subscribers as of Oct. 2024) shocked the world with his transformation. Famous for his explicit mukbang content and provocative persona, the YouTuber went viral for his weight loss transformation through his video titled “Two Steps Ahead” after being inactive for 7 months. In the video, unlike his usual superficial, bombastic demeanor, Nicholas Perry gives a distinctly profound speech of his experience, where he leaves the question: who is the real villain? Through taking a closer look at Perry’s transformation, the dangers of unethical content consumption and the dehumanisation of content creators by the viewers will be explored. The following is a part of Perry’s speech:“This has been the greatest social experiment of my entire life. It’s alluring, it’s compelling, it’s gripping to observe all these unwell, disoriented beings roam the internet and search of stories, ideas, rivalries, where they feel encouraged and engaged, where they involve themselves with the stories and become a product of influence thirsty for distraction from time unspent, spoiling their minds yet stimulating them at the same time. It’s brilliant and it’s dangerous. I feel as if I’m monitoring ants on an ant farm: one follows another, follows another, follows another. (…) All these little consumers, all of these lost and bored people. People consuming anything that they’re told to. ”In his speech, Perry constantly likens viewers to “ants” in his “social experiment” who are “thirsty for distraction from time unspent”. His speculation causes us to think about the negative reciprocation between the content creator and the content consumer. Perry’s succinct speech is followed by a mukbang video, and the uncanny discrepancy between the break in Perry’s Youtube façade, and his direct transition into his usual mukbang content seems to prove his message: “People consuming anything that they’re told to”. Unethical content consumption leads to the unconscious dehumanisation of content creators, as they are viewed as a simple means of entertainment. From time to time, I would visit Nicholas Perry’s YouTube channel before his transformation. Although I never left any hate comments, I am proud to say that I would heavily judge him, thinking about the extent of human downfall. Despite his curated toxic persona, my perception changed when I discovered his earlier videos. His early videos touch on his experience with veganism, and this is done through a soft-spoken, vulnerable manner. Perry also shares his life with his parrot, his partner and his love for violin. In his earlier vegan days, Perry expressed his distress regarding the constant criticism and hate he received for the way he eats, and the toxic vegan community. Perry then denounced his veganism and fell into a spiral of unhealthy eating. The premise of my criticism towards Perry ironically prolonged his regression. I would frequently come across content from Nikocado Avocado’s YouTube channel or read explicit headlines on his obesity, which caused him to wear an oxygen mask and commute by scooter as he could not walk. These would fill me with a disturbing combination of emotions: pity, disgust, awe, and horror. The single view, the internalisation of his hate-filled comment section, and the passive manner in which I consumed all his content— while seemingly harmless— all heavily feeds into the toxic circulation of ‘unhealthy’ content and feedback. While everyone openly berated Nicholas Perry, no one was willing to actually help him. It is true that the regression of Nicholas Perry into Nikocado Avocado can partly be blamed on himself, as he creates a superficial image for himself for quick views. However, I would argue that the responsibility lies more heavily on the viewers. We have viewed the individual called Nicholas Perry as a simple spectacle and dehumanised him into the hated ‘Nikocado Avocado’. “You are what you eat”. If all that we are ‘consuming’ is toxic and explicit content that makes us numb to individual thinking, what are we doing to ourselves and the content creators? If our social media addiction has amounted to an obsessive, unfiltered viewing of human degradation and disaster, what does that say about our social media obsession or excessive content consumption? If Nicholas Perry was able to gain millions and millions of subscribers through exceedingly unhealthy content, what does that say about us? We live in an era where we create villains with our eyes, with a single view or a click of a button. The case of Nikocado Avocado calls for the urgent need of ethical media consumption.
