On January 22, 2025, the 60th anniversary of the Presidential Security Service (PSS) was marked by controversy as lawmakers challenged the propriety of military involvement at the event, which some viewed as more of a celebratory festival for President Yoon Suk-yeol’s birthday than a formal commemoration.
During the National Assembly’s inquiry session, opposition member Boo Seung-chan raised concerns about the deployment of military medical officers from the Seoul National Hospital and members of the 90th Information and Communications Unit to participate in the celebrations. Boo sharply criticized the PSS, stating, "If the PSS acted to mobilize military officers, it implies they are functioning like an event organizing company rather than fulfilling their core duties."
Adding to the controversy, it was revealed during the hearings on the investigation of alleged emergency martial law declarations by the Yoon government, which led several representatives to deeply question the appropriateness of integrating military personnel for what seemed to be light-hearted activities at the anniversary event.
Kim Seong-hoon, the head of the PSS, defended the agency’s actions during the session, explaining, "We have conducted only two such commemorative events, the 50th and 60th anniversaries. Mobilizing personnel was not our preferred option, as full-fledged event management typically incurs monumental costs, potentially reaching millions.”
Boo countered these justifications by remarking, "Are we now seeing military officers be part of celebratory functions? This is not their primary role." The event not only included general commemorations but also festivities akin to birthday party gatherings, leading to questions about its objectives.
At the heart of the debate was the question of whether local military units should be involved in what appeared to be informal ceremonies. "I don’t think military personnel should celebrate the president’s birthday," Boo asserted, raising alarms about the message this sends about military’s role and political neutrality.
Kim maintained his stance, retorting, "On the day, it was the security service’s anniversary, and we had no choice but to carry on with those involved, including military personnel, who were there for absolutely valid reasons tied closely to the PSS's commitments to security."
Throughout the inquiry, discussions frequently referenced the more elaborate activities planned for the anniversary of the PSS, including the singing of songs intended to honor President Yoon, raising eyebrows about the intertwining of soldier duties with celebratory expressions never intended for military engagement.
During previous sessions, there were precedents set by the PSS when they orchestrated similar celebratory events, yet this seemed to cross uncharted waters for opposition members. For many assembly members present, this shift away from rigid defense protocols to festive camaraderie has incited stark criticisms from those on the left side of the political spectrum.
Notably, Democratic assembly member Yoon Geon-young questioned the appropriateness of such engagements, leading to heated exchanges on whether it is correct to have public servants partake in notable personal celebrations favored by political figures. “Is it right for soldiers assigned to protect our nation to be part of month-long birthday celebrations?” he asked. This inquiry, echoed by Boo, generated significant unrest among those who believe military engagement should remain distinctly separate from political festivities.
A former minister of national defense also voiced his concerns over the appropriation of military personnel for such occasions. Commenting on previous engagements involving the military being called upon for celebration and festivities, he expressed worries about long-term ramifications on military professionalism and integrity when publicizing close ties with government officials.
The assembly hearing reflects larger and more complex discussions reverberated within the government-focused political environment, leading many to speculate on how the perception of military and ceremonial duties might be recalibrated. Are we witnessing the blurring of lines between state duties and personal celebrations?
Kim continued to defend the PSS's role during the scrutiny, asserting the anniversary event’s participation was not coercive but rather emblematic of collaboration and support for the president. Defending the arrangements of such engagements seemed to inadvertently elicit the opposite response, fostering skepticism about upcoming interactions between the political and military realms.
Despite the pushback from lawmakers, the PSS holds fast to the position of these events being harmless celebrations of duty intertwined with recognition of leadership, though many argue this could outstrip what is sensible and appropriate.
Moving forward, it may become imperative for both military and political leaders to recalibrate their messaging and public perceptions of these intertwined roles, ensuring the integrity and separation intended between state functions and personal accolades remain respected.