Who are the Commissioner and Members for The Third Subcommittee for TRC 3?
The original photo of is from this Newsis Article. The caption of the original photo reads:
“[Seoul = Newsis] (Center) Song Sang-gyo, chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Korea, and the commissioners pose for a commemorative photo after finishing the 1st commission meeting held on the 3rd in the large conference room of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Jung-gu, Seoul. (Photo provided by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission) 2026.07.03.”
Since the caption above does not identify the Commissioners individually, we have done some online sleuthing and added text identifying the individuals we believe serve as the four Commissioners for the Third Subcommittee of TRC 3.
If we have misidentified anyone, please email us a correction to: paperslipadoptee@gmail.com - thank you!
*Paperslip Note:
Please note that this article clarifies that there is one Commissioner and three “Members” of The Third Subcommittee for TRC 3. Other Korean articles mention 4 “Commissioners”.
Whatever they’re called, the key point is that one Commissioner oversees the other three, and none of them are Investigators.
The Investigators for TRC 3 have NOT yet been hired as of July 6th, 2026.
+
Now that TRC 3 has completed its 3 Subcommittees and appointed its Commissioners, we wanted to know about the backgrounds of the Commissioner and Members for the Third Subcommittee, which will handle cases of Overseas Adoptees.
Please see our related blog post:
Newsis: TRC 3 Completes 3 Subcommittees, Speeds Truth-Finding Preparations.
We used ChatGPT as a starting point, and then dug up further articles which discuss each Commissioner / Member.
We have visually identified the Commissioner and Members of the Third Subcommittee in the Newsis photo above.
+
We asked ChatGPT:
What are the backgrounds of these commissioners (and Members of The Third Subcommittee for TRC 3)?
ChatGPT said:
The Third Subcommittee appears to have been assembled with a mix of legal, human rights, and social welfare expertise. Here's a summary of the four commissioners' ( / members’) backgrounds and how they may relate to overseas adoption and institutional abuse cases.
1 - Jang Young-soo (장영수) — Chair (Standing Commissioner)
Background
Constitutional law scholar and law professor.
Former dean of a law school.
Long career in constitutional law, administrative law, and public law.
Has written extensively on constitutional rights, democracy, and state accountability.
Relevance
Brings a strong legal and constitutional perspective.
Not previously known as a specialist in overseas adoption, but well suited to questions about state responsibility, standards of proof, and legal accountability.
His recent public comments (reported by Newsis) indicate he is already thinking about how to evaluate decades-old overseas adoption cases where documentary evidence may be incomplete.
2 - Kim Jeong-ha (김정하)
Background
Social welfare scholar.
Research has focused on child welfare, social services, and vulnerable populations.
Experience in welfare policy and institutional care.
Relevance
Probably the member with the closest academic connection to issues affecting children and institutional care.
This expertise is directly relevant to both overseas adoption investigations and institutional confinement cases.
3 - Kim Young-joo (김영주, commissioner)
Background
Human rights and public-interest legal experience.
Has worked on issues involving civil rights and social justice.
Relevance
Likely contributes expertise in human rights law and victim-centered investigations.
This complements the constitutional law perspective of the chair.
(This is not the former Minister of Employment and Labor of the same name.)
4 - Choi Chang-ho (최창호)
Background
Attorney with substantial legal practice.
Experience includes litigation and public-interest legal matters.
Relevance
Adds practical legal expertise regarding evidence, procedure, and fact-finding.
Overall composition
The Third Subcommittee seems intentionally balanced:
Commissioner
Main expertise
Likely contribution
Jang Young-soo
Constitutional law
State responsibility, legal standards, commission procedure
Kim Jeong-ha
Social welfare / child welfare
Institutions, child protection, welfare systems
Kim Young-joo
Human rights / public-interest law
Human rights analysis, victim perspective
Choi Chang-ho
Litigation / legal practice
Evidence assessment, legal procedure
For overseas adoption investigations, this combination makes sense because the Commission will need to evaluate:
whether state agencies failed in their legal duties,
how child welfare institutions and adoption agencies operated,
whether applicants' human rights were violated,
and whether the available historical evidence is sufficient to support findings.
One interesting point is that none of the four appears to be a specialist in international adoption history itself. Instead, the committee is weighted toward constitutional law, human rights, social welfare, and legal procedure. That suggests the Commission may rely heavily on its investigators, outside experts, historians, and testimony from adoptees and practitioners when examining the historical operation of Korea's overseas adoption system.
+
The Hanyoreh Article below discusses these three individuals in more depth:
1 - Jang Young-soo (장영수) — Chair (Standing Commissioner)
2 - Kim Jeong-ha (김정하, Member)
3 - Kim Young-joo (김영주, Member)
+
The Hankyoreh:
[Exclusive] Ruling and Opposition Parties Nominate Professors Lee Ho-jung and Jang Young-soo as Standing Commissioners for Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Originally published in Korean in The Hankyoreh on April 16th, 2026
English translation via ChatGPT posted to Paperslip on July 5th, 2026.
Some BOLDS and blue highlighting ours.
Please note that the People Power Party (PPP) is the arch conservative party of S. Korea.
By Ko Kyung-tae
Updated: April 16, 2026, 3:52 p.m.
“Non-standing commissioner nominees include Kim Jeong-ha, Jeong Won-ok, Kim Young-joo, and Lee Dong-wook.
Professors Lee Ho-jung of Sogang University Law School and Jang Young-soo, emeritus professor at Korea University Law School, have been confirmed as the nominees for standing commissioner positions on the Third Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) by the Democratic Party of Korea and the People Power Party, respectively.
According to information obtained by The Hankyoreh on the 13th, the Democratic Party and the People Power Party—each of which is entitled to recommend four of the Commission's thirteen members, for a total of eight—have finalized six of their nominees and notified them of their selections.
The Democratic Party has decided to nominate:
Professor Lee Ho-jung as a standing commissioner;
Kim Jeong-ha, an activist with Foot Action for Disability and Human Rights (장애와인권발바닥행동), as a non-standing commissioner;
Jeong Won-ok, director of the Institute for Culture and Society;
Attorney Kim Young-joo ofJihyang Law Firm.
The People Power Party has nominated:
Professor Jang Young-soo as a standing commissioner; and
Lee Dong-wook, a former commissioner of the 5·18 Democratization Movement Truth-Finding Investigation Commission, as a non-standing commissioner.
The six nominees will be formally appointed after approval by a vote of the National Assembly and presidential confirmation.
The Third Truth and Reconciliation Commission consists of 13 commissioners, four more than the nine members of the Second Commission.
The commissioners are appointed as follows:
three nominated by the President;
one recommended by the Speaker of the National Assembly;
four each recommended by the ruling and opposition parties (eight total);
one recommended by a parliamentary party outside the two major parties.
Among them, three are standing commissioners, including one directly appointed by the President. Each standing commissioner will oversee one of the Commission's three investigation bureaus:
Investigation Bureau 1, which examines Korean War-era cases;
Investigation Bureau 2, which investigates various human rights violations;
Investigation Bureau 3, which is responsible for institutional confinement facilities and overseas adoption cases.
At present, the President's remaining two nominees (including one standing commissioner), the Speaker's nominee, the minor-party nominee, and two People Power Party nominees have not yet been finalized.
Both Lee Ho-jung and Jang Young-soo, who have now been selected as standing commissioner nominees by their respective parties, have previous experience investigating historical truth issues. Professor Lee served on the Sewol Ferry Special Investigation Commission, while Professor Jang served as a non-standing commissioner on the Second Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In an interview with The Hankyoreh, Professor Lee said:
"Many cases remained unfinished during the first and second commissions. Since I believe the third commission is the last opportunity, I will do my utmost."
Professor Jang said:
"The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is not an institution of state power but a place that seeks to heal the pain of those who have been wounded. That places a great burden on us. I feel a profound sense of responsibility."
A Commission official expressed hope that:
"The National Assembly will complete the appointment process during April, before the local election season begins."
Meanwhile, the Commission is currently recruiting senior staff, including bureau directors, division chiefs, and team leaders. Following hiring procedures and security clearances, appointments of senior staff are expected to be completed by the end of May.
At present, the only senior political appointee who has been confirmed is Jung Hyuk, who was appointed policy adviser (equivalent to Grade 4 civil service) on March 23. During the Second Commission, Jung served as team leader in the Office of External Cooperation, president of the Commission's civil servants' association, and head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission branch of the Korean Government Employees' Union.”
+
ChatGPT said:
One notable aspect of this article is that it identifies which political party nominated each commissioner. For the members of the Third Subcommittee dealing with overseas adoption:
Jang Young-soo — nominated by the People Power Party (PPP).
Kim Jeong-ha — nominated by the Democratic Party.
Kim Young-joo — nominated by the Democratic Party.
This means the subcommittee was intentionally constituted with commissioners nominated by different political parties, rather than being composed exclusively of one side.”
+
The Hanyoreh Article below discusses this individual:
2 - Kim Jeong-ha (김정하, Member)
Originally published in Korean in The Hankyoreh on May 12th, 2026
English translation via ChatGPT posted to Paperslip on July 5th, 2026.
Some BOLDS and blue highlighting ours.
+
The Hankyoreh Article:
"'An Attitude' Can Become a Crime That Costs Someone Their Life"
Hello, Truth and Reconciliation Commission (28)
The Hankyoreh
Published: May 12, 2026, 11:05 a.m.
Updated: May 12, 2026, 11:25 a.m.
“Kim Jeong-ha, senior activist with Foot Action for Disability and Human Rights, whose nomination as a non-standing commissioner of the Third Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been approved by the National Assembly, is interviewed by The Hankyoreh on May 8 at the organization's office in Dongsoong-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul.
The Korean greeting "annyeong" (안녕) means both goodbye and hello.
The Second Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which served for five years as Korea's official body for investigating historical injustices, passed into history on November 26 of last year. The Third Truth and Reconciliation Commission was launched on February 26.
Looking back on the second commission and looking ahead to the third, "Hello, Truth and Reconciliation Commission" is an occasional series that seeks out the faces and voices that have not previously received attention. Through the stories of people deeply committed to investigating and uncovering historical truths, it explores the aspirations and expectations surrounding the Third Commission.
Goodbye, Truth Commission! Hello, Truth Commission!
"We should investigate all of them on the Commission's own initiative. But what if we stir up a hornet's nest and then can't reach any conclusions?"
The Second Truth and Reconciliation Commission was criticized for becoming trapped in an application-based approach, limiting its investigations and findings largely to cases formally submitted by victims or their families.
By contrast, a central principle of the newly launched Third Commission is ex officio investigations—initiating investigations on its own authority.
Especially in cases involving institutions, Kim believes it is self-evident that the Commission should investigate the broader historical context, identify victims who never filed applications, and provide them with redress.
At the same time, she worries:
"Can we really carry out ex officio investigations of every institution with such limited staff and time?"
She now finds herself balancing two different perspectives: the heart of an activist who wants investigators to search the field relentlessly and uncover every truth, and the responsibility of a commissioner who must review investigators' findings, deliberate on them, and vote on official decisions.
Kim Jeong-ha (51), senior activist with Foot Action for Disability and Human Rights and CEO of the social welfare foundation Freewell, has been nominated as a non-standing commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
From the First Commission through the Third, she is the first serving human rights activist ever nominated as a commissioner. Until now, commissioners have overwhelmingly been lawyers or university professors.
On April 23, the National Assembly approved the resolution selecting the commissioners. She is now awaiting formal appointment by the President, along with the other nine nominees recommended by the ruling and opposition parties, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and a minor parliamentary party.
She was nominated by the Democratic Party of Korea.
Photograph: A 2006 whistleblower image exposing human rights abuses at the Seongram Foundation. A boy's ankle is tied to a doorknob with a cord.
Photo courtesy of Foot Action for Disability and Human Rights.
It is often said that the name Kim Jeong-ha has become virtually synonymous with South Korea's deinstitutionalization movement, which transformed disability policy in the country.
People with severe disabilities who had once lived within local communities gradually disappeared over time, being placed almost entirely into institutions—a situation that came to be accepted as normal.
Kim stood at the forefront of the movement that challenged that assumption.
Four years ago, writer Hong Eun-jeon, who has chronicled the lives and voices of Korean disability rights activists, wrote:
"The past twenty years of Kim Jeong-ha's life overlap almost exactly with the history of Korea's deinstitutionalization movement—its challenges, its failures, its breakthroughs, and its progress."
Kim began working at the Research Institute for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 1999.
In 2005, together with four colleagues—Park Ok-soon, Yeo Jun-min, Lim So-yeon, and Park Sook-kyung—she founded Foot Action for Disability and Human Rights, launching a movement to secure the right of people with disabilities to leave institutions and live in the community.
The organization's name reflects a practical commitment:
"To go directly into the field on foot and listen to the voices of those there."
Among the organization's most significant campaigns were:
in 2006, exposing corruption and abuse at the Seongram Foundation, which housed more than 1,000 people with disabilities; and
in 2009, supporting residents who escaped from institutions operated by the Seokam Foundation, exposing human rights abuses there, and demanding recognition of the right to leave institutions.
Since 2018, Kim has served as CEO of the Freewell Social Welfare Foundation, an organization established to reform the Seokam Foundation and support independent living for people with disabilities who had been living in its facilities.
As CEO of Freewell, she pushed for the closure of House of Enjoyment (Hyangyu-ui Jip)—formerly the Seokam Bethesda Nursing Home—one of the foundation's three residential institutions.
Former residents were assisted in moving into Seoul's supported housing program for people with disabilities, where they could live independently in their own homes.
The former site of House of Enjoyment in Gimpo has since been redeveloped into public rental housing built according to universal design principles, as part of a Ministry of Land project promoting housing that supports independent living for people with disabilities.
The moment that solidified her decision to live as a disability rights activist for deinstitutionalization came in 2001, when she joined a television news crew for a surprise visit to an unregistered disability facility in Jeongseon, Gangwon Province. The sight of a disabled woman tied up in the courtyard of a crumbling building surrounded by barbed wire left her in deep shock. Even afterward, visiting other facilities consistently produced the same sense of shock.
The history of struggle that followed—used as her driving force—is clearly reflected in the look in her eyes in past photographs. She appears like a “warrior” with a chilling sense of solemn determination. The interviewer’s first question to Kim Jeong-ha, whom she met on the afternoon of the 8th in a conference room at the Maronie Glass Building in Dongsoong-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul (where Foot Action for Disability and Human Rights is located), was about that look in her photographs. The following is an interview.
A photo from August 23, 2006 shows Kim Jeong-ha surrounded by police while carrying out a deinstitutionalization-related performance protesting corruption at the Seongram Foundation, a social welfare corporation. (Photo provided by BeMinor, taken by Jeon Jin-ho)
— When I searched past news articles, I saw photos of you with expressions as if you were fighting for your life.
“The human rights violations in institutions were so severe, and I felt that society did not recognize them, so whenever I had a chance to speak about them, I think my voice, my gaze, and my expression all became more intense. In fact, issues like mobility rights or education rights for people with disabilities can be solved if the budget is provided. There is no particularly strong opposition to them. Compared to that, the struggle for deinstitutionalization means confronting interest groups that want to maintain institutionalization. So even at forums my expression tends to become very serious, and there are many photos of me raising my voice or arguing. It still feels embarrassing when I see them again.” (laughs)
— What were the conditions of people with disabilities in institutions when you first saw them in the field?
“After founding Foot Action for Disability and Human Rights in 2005, our first activity was a nationwide survey of residential institutions for people with disabilities. When we asked residents, ‘What do you do all day?’ some said, ‘I don’t understand why I have to live here. I just sit in a wheelchair,’ or ‘One day I lie in bed staring at this wall, and the next day I’m bored so I lie facing the other wall.’
Traveling across the country, we became convinced that these facilities were in fact isolating people with disabilities from society, normalizing inferior treatment, and erasing their voices and existence.”
A photo from 2005 shows an elderly person with dementia at the Simshin Training Center in Inje, Gangwon Province, sitting blankly facing a wall. The door was locked from the outside, and the bedding smelled strongly. The red container on the right is a container for bodily waste. (Photo provided by BeMinor, taken by Jeon Jin-ho)
— In another interview, you mentioned the shock you experienced in institutions. Has the situation improved now?
“In July 2001, I visited an unregistered facility in Jeongseon, Gangwon Province with a crew from SBS’s Unanswered Questions. That experience ultimately led me to become a deinstitutionalization human rights activist.
In the deep mountains in midsummer, there was a disabled woman tied up in a long blue skirt in the yard of a building surrounded by barbed wire—so dilapidated it looked like it could collapse at any moment. I can never forget that inhumane environment and the faces of about 40 people there. Starting from that incident, reports of abuse in residential facilities kept coming in. Even when facilities were shut down, victims would be moved from one institution to another as if they were being passed around endlessly. That concern eventually led me to raise a new banner in 2005, ‘Foot Action for Disability and Human Rights.’
Cases of physical abuse, confinement, forced labor, sexual violence, extortion, and inhumane treatment in meals and living conditions, as well as restrictions on outside communication, continued to occur in facilities such as the Seongsil Training Center in Yangpyeong (Gyeonggi Province, 2003), Eunhyesarang House in Yeongi, Chungnam (2003), Yeongnakwon in Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul (2004), and Paul Mission Center in Anyang and Jiin Language Therapy Center in Seongnam (2005), regardless of whether they were reported or how large they were.
The similarities in their practices were too consistent to dismiss as individual operators’ moral failings. Moreover, supervisory authorities consistently said, ‘We didn’t know,’ ‘We will take action once police investigations are concluded,’ or ‘We have too much work to supervise closely.’
Looking at recent cases such as the abuse of residents at Taeyeon Rehabilitation Center in Ulsan and the suspected sexual abuse case at Saekdongwon, as well as facilities I investigated as a civilian commissioner, the nature and degree may differ slightly, but from the perspective of victims, nothing has changed even today.”
— What is the current situation of the Seongram Foundation, which was the subject of large-scale protests in 2006 due to corruption?
“After the founding chairperson went to prison and was released, the eldest son—who had studied social welfare in the United States—returned and took over as chairperson. This was an institution where, at the time, there were issues involving embezzlement of funds for residents’ basic living expenses, food costs, heating, clothing, as well as labor exploitation of residents, sexual violence, and even deaths.
Back then, a single kimbap roll at ‘Kimbap Heaven’ cost 1,000 won, but the per capita food budget for a disabled resident was less than that.
At one point, they said they would donate the facilities they operated—Eunhye Nursing Home and Munhye Nursing Home, both for people with severe disabilities—to the Seoul Metropolitan Government and withdraw from management, so we reduced the intensity of our struggle. But later they canceled the donation and even filed lawsuits, which they won. The current chairperson still exerts influence in the social welfare sector. It ultimately became a painfully failed struggle.
However, as a result of that case, management stopped forcing employees to do the family’s farming work, and some disabled residents were able to achieve independent living.”
— The so-called “Dogani incident” became widely known in 2005, and since late 2025 the Saekdongwon case has been gaining attention.
“The Saekdongwon case, involving sexual violence committed by operators at a residential facility for people with disabilities in Incheon, is similar to the ‘Dogani incident’ that first became known in 2005 at the Inhwa School and Inhwa Institute in Gwangju (the name ‘Dogani’ comes from Gong Ji-young’s novel of the same name, later adapted into a film).
The perpetrators exploited the vulnerability of disabled people with limited ability to defend themselves, and when the issue first surfaced, they used local power networks to protect themselves. Local governments also sided with the perpetrators and tried to end the matter by transferring victims to other institutions.
In the 2005 Dogani case, it was only after the film adaptation was released in 2011 that public outrage was ignited, and only then did both the judiciary and the executive branch begin to act.
In the 2025 Saekdongwon case, a statement by the Prime Minister triggered the formation of a government-wide task force (TF). However, the meetings only included the local government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare—both of which had previously been passive—while victims and advocacy groups were excluded.
Moreover, the government’s recently announced measures (Comprehensive Measures for Preventing Abuse in Residential Facilities for People with Disabilities and Strengthening Human Rights) are extremely inadequate.
In the Dogani case, victims were transferred to other newly established institutions, but human rights abuses occurred there as well, forcing further transfers to yet other facilities.
In the Saekdongwon case, 78% of the victims had already been transferred there after experiencing abuse in other institutions. Yet once again, the government is trying to move them to other facilities.”
— In what way are the government’s measures for the Saekdongwon case inadequate?
“A clear example is the ‘human rights monitoring groups’ (Human Rights Guardians for residential facilities for people with disabilities) that have existed since the Dogani case. There are external monitoring groups, but the system also relies on internal staff members who act as coordinators, while external members monitor whether there are human rights issues when visiting residents.
But it is not appropriate for facility employees to play this role. It should be like undercover inspectors who can make surprise visits. Has any facility ever been reported and shut down because of these monitoring groups? No.
In addition, the central center overseeing these monitoring groups is located within the Korea Association of Welfare Facilities. That is like entrusting a fish shop to a cat. This association is full of the interests of facility operators—how could it function properly? Even during parliamentary audits, there were calls to move this system outside the association.
Following the 2017 amendment to the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act, Disability Rights Advocacy Agencies have been established nationwide. Strengthening these agencies and granting them authority to conduct on-site investigations of facilities would be far more effective.”
— You have raised the issue of “deinstitutionalization” for 25 years.
“The field of disability rights has brought about changes in many areas thanks to the rights struggles of people with disabilities. The most representative examples are mobility rights, personal assistance services, and deinstitutionalization policy. In an ultra-aged society, deinstitutionalization is no longer an issue only for people with disabilities.
According to data from the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the National Medical Center for 2024–2025, there are about 230,000 elderly people in nursing homes and hospitals for care and protection—far more than the 24,000 disabled people currently in institutions (or 28,000 including group homes). If you include 210,000 patients in geriatric hospitals, the total comes to just under 500,000 people.
If we fail to change policy direction, all of us will ultimately end up moving between institutions or hospitals and die there.”
— Since 2022, a “community independent living support project” has been underway to provide public rental housing to people with disabilities leaving institutions, and recently a Disability Rights Act explicitly including “deinstitutionalization” passed the National Assembly. How do you see the future?
“It is very significant that Article 19 of the Disability Rights Act explicitly includes the right to deinstitutionalization—it is the first time such a provision has appeared in Korean disability law.
However, in the law that specifically promotes deinstitutionalization—the Act on Community Independent Living and Housing Transition Support for Persons with Disabilities (enacted in March 2025)—deinstitutionalization itself was not explicitly written in.
Due to opposition from interest groups that operate institutions, the government still maintains an ambiguous position: it says it supports deinstitutionalization at international conferences, while expanding institutional support domestically.
However, with the growing public demand for social care and increasing awareness of institutionalization as a human rights issue, I think the only remaining issue is speed.”
— Foot Action for Disability and Human Rights also raised its voice in the Second Truth and Reconciliation Commission regarding the investigation of the Myeonghaksuk and Jae-saengwon cases.
“We have long known that there were countless problematic institutions for vagrants and marginalized people in the past. I did not initially take part in the movement, but I began to participate seriously after meeting Han Jong-seon in 2013, a survivor of the Brothers Home incident (now head of the Brothers Home Survivors and Families Association).
Later, in 2023, I worked closely with Song Seok-ju, head of the Myeonghaksuk and Jae-saengwon Survivors Association, and helped many victims of those facilities.
The Second Truth and Reconciliation Commission was in fact born out of the difficult struggle of Brothers Home survivors. But I felt frustrated and angry that many victims of institutional abuse failed to apply in time during the Second Commission.”
— Were there any institutional cases from the Second Commission’s truth-finding process that stood out to you?
“I remember Mr. Jeon Bong-soo, who became independent after leaving Daegu Hope Village and received support from the Daegu Disability Community Network. He is an example of the limitations of the application-based system.
In 2022, TRC investigators found his family within a week. But back in 1998, when Mr. Jeon spoke about his family and hometown at Daegu Hope Village, no one listened to him. He was treated only as a case to be managed.
They left him as a ‘person with no known relatives’ for 23 years and 6 months, even though his family could have been found within a week. This is a typical attitude of welfare institutions toward people with developmental disabilities.
We need to pay attention to how such an ‘attitude’ becomes a crime. No one at Daegu Hope Village—neither management nor staff—was punished or even questioned for ignoring his repeated references to his family.
But Mr. Jeon lost his family and was forced to live in institutions for more than 20 years against his will.
During the damages lawsuit, the Ministry of Justice argued on behalf of the state that he had been found intoxicated and wandering on the street, so he was not forcibly institutionalized but ‘placed under protective measures.’
However, if a non-disabled person were found drunk on the street by police, that would not be grounds for institutionalization. We must remember that such routine administrative practices and attitudes can result in state violence.”
— What kind of contribution do you hope to make as a member of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
“Since my identity is rooted in the deinstitutionalization movement, I believe it is appropriate for me to work in the newly established Third Subcommittee (Investigation Bureau 3), which handles residential institutions and overseas adoption cases.
I believe it is necessary for someone who understands the lived experience and structural realities of institutional abuse to represent the voices of survivors and uncover the truth about state violence within the social welfare system.
I intend to strongly express my views on matters I clearly understand, both in the subcommittee and in the full Commission. I will also study other cases, such as civilian massacres during the Korean War, which will be discussed in plenary sessions.
These days, I regularly read truth-finding reports on the Commission’s website.”
— What would you like to see in the Third Commission’s Investigation Bureau 3?
“As I understand it, the Third Commission’s principle is to move beyond application-based investigations and emphasize ex officio investigations. I hope they do not only scratch the surface.
However, since time and personnel are limited, I worry that they may stir up too much without being able to reach conclusions. There will inevitably be limits requiring prioritization.
Unlike the Second Commission, which recommended state apologies for individual cases such as Brothers Home, the Third Commission should go further and have the state acknowledge that the entire institutionalization policy itself constitutes state violence and reflect on it.
I also hope detailed measures are proposed to prevent history from repeating itself.”
— Any final thoughts?
“I understand that in the Second Commission, there were many cases where investigations were suspended because investigators could not verify institutionalization, even though applicants clearly remembered being institutionalized. The records simply no longer existed.
I hope we can gather and digitize records from all these institutions as much as possible. This is necessary not only for investigations but also for historical preservation.
Institutions classify document retention periods as 5 years, 10 years, or permanent. In the past, there were no such standards—some institutions kept records, others did not.
Some institutions may even deny having records out of fear of repercussions, even if they actually possess them.”’