logo
Kim Shin-jo: The bizarre life of a failed North Korean assassin who became a pastor in the South

Kim Shin-jo: The bizarre life of a failed North Korean assassin who became a pastor in the South

Independent09-04-2025

Kim Shin-jo, a former North Korean commando who later became a pastor in South Korea, has died at the age of 82. He was known for his involvement in a failed assassination attempt on then-South Korean President Park Chung-hee in 1968.
Kim's death was due to old age, according to his church, Sungrak Church in Seoul. His funeral is scheduled for Saturday. He is survived by his wife, whom he met after resettling in South Korea, and their two children.
In 1968, Kim was part of a 31-member North Korean commando unit that attempted to infiltrate the South Korean presidential palace to assassinate Park, who had been South Korea's authoritarian leader since 1961.
The North Koreans had slipped undetected through the Koreas' heavily fortified border and came within striking distance of Park's palace. After battles that raged for two weeks in the nearby hills, all but three of the intruders were killed. Two survivors were believed to have returned to North Korea, while Kim was the only one captured alive by South Korean forces.
In a news conference arranged by South Korean authorities, Kim stunned the nation by saying that his team came 'to slit the throat of Park Chung-hee.'
The infiltration, which also killed about 30 South Koreans, happened at the height of Cold War rivalry between the rival Koreas which was split into the U.S.-backed South and the Soviet-supported North at the end of the World War II in 1945. After the incident, Park's government launched reservist forces, established a military unit tasked with attacking North Korea, had students take military training at schools and introduced residential registration card systems.
In media interviews, Kim said he was pardoned because he didn't fire a single bullet during the shootouts and was persuaded by South Korean officials to disavow communism. He said South Korean intelligence authorities later had him travel across the country to make speeches critical of North Korean systems at schools, companies and other places.
Kim said he later learned that his parents in North Korea were executed. Kim was ordained as a pastor in 1997.
Kim said the 1968 attack was made at the order of North Korea founder and then leader Kim Il Sung, the late grandfather of current ruler Kim Jong Un. Kim Il Sung died of heart attack in 1994, handing over power to his son Kim Jong Il, the father of Kim Jong Un.
'I earlier didn't know why Kim Il Sung wanted to kill President Park,' Kim Shin-jo said in a 2009 interview with South Korea's mass-circulation JoongAng Ilbo newspaper. 'But I came to know the reason as I spent time here. Kim must have been afraid of a poor country such as South Korea becoming rich. As the economy improved, South Korea would secure more money to buy weapons. From Kim Il Sung's perspective, he couldn't help killing President Park to achieve communization of South Korea.'
But in a 2007 autobiography by Park Geun-hye, daughter of Park Chung-hee who became South Korea's first woman president in 2013, she said when she met Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang in 2022, the younger Kim said the 1968 incident was orchestrated by 'extremists' as he apologized for the incident. Park Geun-hye said Kim Jong Il told her that they all received unspecified due punishments.
Kim Jong Il's reported comments couldn't be independently verified. Kim Jong Il died of heart attack in late 2011.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Europe's far-right paradox
Europe's far-right paradox

New Statesman​

time2 days ago

  • New Statesman​

Europe's far-right paradox

Photo by Diego Radames/Anadolu via Getty Images A toxic dynamic centred on refugee policy is creating political instability across much of Europe. As established mainstream parties struggle to figure out how best to deal with the far right, they are succumbing to pressure to get tougher on asylum seekers and thus mainstreaming and normalising far-right rhetoric and policy. But whether they exclude those movements from government or seek to cooperate with them, it is becoming increasingly difficult to form stable governments in Europe. On 3 June, the Dutch government collapsed when Geert Wilders withdrew his far-right Freedom Party (PVV) from the four-party coalition just over a year after it was formed. After the election in November 2023 in which the PVV emerged as the biggest party in the Dutch parliament, it took six months to form a government that included the centre-right People's Party (VVD) and was led by Dick Schoof, a career civil servant. New elections will now be held, though the date has not yet been set. After the 2023 election, Wilders had promised 'the toughest asylum policy ever' and made sure that his party controlled the asylum ministry so that it could implement his radical ten-point plan. This included deploying the army at Dutch borders, turning away all new asylum seekers, deporting Syrians whose claims were already being processed, and rejecting EU quotas. But on 3 June, he declared that the new government had not gone far enough or quickly enough and pulled out. In the Netherlands, mainstream parties have long cooperated with the far right. As far back as 2010, the then-VVD leader Mark Rutte led a minority government that had a confidence-and-supply agreement with the PVV. This week's events illustrate the fragility of that approach. Wilders hopes his party will do even better in the new elections and that he will be able to become prime minister himself. Centrists, meanwhile, hope his move will backfire and that voters will punish him for his unreasonableness. In Germany, meanwhile, where the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) became the second biggest party in the Bundestag after the election that took place in February, the mainstream parties have taken a different approach. Cooperation with the far right is much more of a taboo in Germany than in the Netherlands – there is a consensus around the idea that what are often called 'democratic forces' must maintain a Brandmauer, or firewall, to keep the far right away from power. The new chancellor Friedrich Merz has actually gone quite far in cooperating with them, by German standards at least. During the election campaign last year, he cooperated with the AfD to push an 'influx limitation bill' through the Bundestag. But as controversial as this was – it alienated the Social Democrats (SPD), with whom Merz knew he would likely have to cooperate after the election – it falls a long way short of what has happened in the Netherlands. It remains politically impossible for Germany's Christian Democrats to form a minority government dependent on AfD votes as Rutte did, let alone actually form a coalition with it. This meant that, after the election, Merz's only option was to form a grand coalition with the Social Democrats. (Some right-wing Christian Democrats, such as the historian Andreas Rödder, are beginning to argue that they need to break the taboo on cooperation with the AfD if only to give themselves other options and thus increase their power in negotiations with the SPD.) Yet despite this different approach, the political situation in Germany is now remarkably similar to that in the Netherlands. Like Wilders, Merz ran on a promise to get even tougher on asylum seekers – he promised a 'de-facto entry ban' that would have violated EU law. For all the obsessive focus on maintaining the Brandmauer, the boundaries between the centrists and the far right on refugee policy have long been blurred – in fact Wilders argues that Germany is already doing much of what he wants to do. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe However, while Merz and the Social Democrats had settled on a compromise on asylum policy – the coalition agreement promised a 'deportation offensive' but Merz was forced to dilute his promise of an entry ban – it could yet unravel. This week, a Berlin court ruled that it was unlawful for German border guards to push back three Somalis who had crossed the border from Poland and sought to claim asylum in Germany. In response, Merz seemed to suggest that he might be prepared to ignore the ruling. In doing so, Merz is threatening to abandon the compromise he reached with the SPD and, with an eye on the AfD, reverting to the approach he took during the election campaign. The Social Democrats, who have themselves moved to the right on refugee policy but stopped short of rejecting German court rulings and EU law, have insisted that the government must adhere to the rule of law – after all, this, Germany's 'democratic forces' have always insisted, is what differentiates them from 'populist' parties like the AfD. It is unlikely that the coalition will collapse over this issue. But that is itself largely because the Christian Democrats and SPD fear that if there were new elections, as there will now be in the Netherlands, the AfD would do even better than it did in February. The problem, not just in Germany but also elsewhere in Europe, is that incoherent coalitions of centrist parties formed only to keep the far right out of power also tend to strengthen the far right. [See also: Labour's muddled message] Related

MP repeats calls for inquiry into British role in 1984 storming of Golden Temple
MP repeats calls for inquiry into British role in 1984 storming of Golden Temple

South Wales Guardian

time2 days ago

  • South Wales Guardian

MP repeats calls for inquiry into British role in 1984 storming of Golden Temple

Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) referred to official documents released by the government in 2014 which showed the UK was aware of the plans by then-Indian president Indira Gandhi for troops to storm the temple to break up a protest by Sikh separatists who wanted an independent homeland to be formed, called Khalistan. The documents indicated Margaret Thatcher's government sent an SAS officer to help the Indian government plan the attack in 1984. Thousands of protesters gathered in central London on Sunday to call on the Government to honour previous manifesto commitments, and pledges by Sir Keir Starmer, to hold an independent inquiry. Speaking at business questions in the Commons, Mr Juss said: 'I was in the House during business questions on January 9 when (Tan Singh Dhesi) referred to the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June 1984, ordered by the then-Indian government. 'Documents revealed in 2014 said that the Thatcher government had helped their Indian counterpart by providing advice for Operation Blue Star. Since 2014, there have been many calls made and assurances given to establish the extent of the British government's involvement. 'So will the leader of the House please now agree for a statement to be given to the House for an independent, judge-led public inquiry, to get to the bottom of what happened, in her own words.' After the protest on Sunday, Mr Dhesi, a Labour MP, told Sky News he had been informed by ministers and Downing Street that an inquiry was 'under consideration'. After the release of documents in 2014, an internal government review found the UK's role was 'purely advisory' and given months beforehand. Then-foreign secretary William Hague said British military advice was given to India ahead of the deadly attack but said it had only 'limited impact'. Official Indian figures put the death toll at 575 according to the former Tory leader, who now sits as Lord Hague of Richmond in the House of Lords. Commons leader Lucy Powell said: 'It was raised with me previously a few months ago and I made clear what I hope would happen on that occasion. I absolutely understand the concerns of members across this House and from those from the Sikh community and many of those he represents as well. 'I did follow up when I was asked that previously, I have followed up these issues with the Foreign Office. I'm sorry to say I'm still waiting to hear about that from them, but I will ensure that when I do, he and other members are made fully aware of that and the House is updated.'

MP repeats calls for inquiry into British role in 1984 storming of Golden Temple
MP repeats calls for inquiry into British role in 1984 storming of Golden Temple

Leader Live

time2 days ago

  • Leader Live

MP repeats calls for inquiry into British role in 1984 storming of Golden Temple

Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) referred to official documents released by the government in 2014 which showed the UK was aware of the plans by then-Indian president Indira Gandhi for troops to storm the temple to break up a protest by Sikh separatists who wanted an independent homeland to be formed, called Khalistan. The documents indicated Margaret Thatcher's government sent an SAS officer to help the Indian government plan the attack in 1984. Thousands of protesters gathered in central London on Sunday to call on the Government to honour previous manifesto commitments, and pledges by Sir Keir Starmer, to hold an independent inquiry. Speaking at business questions in the Commons, Mr Juss said: 'I was in the House during business questions on January 9 when (Tan Singh Dhesi) referred to the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June 1984, ordered by the then-Indian government. 'Documents revealed in 2014 said that the Thatcher government had helped their Indian counterpart by providing advice for Operation Blue Star. Since 2014, there have been many calls made and assurances given to establish the extent of the British government's involvement. 'So will the leader of the House please now agree for a statement to be given to the House for an independent, judge-led public inquiry, to get to the bottom of what happened, in her own words.' After the protest on Sunday, Mr Dhesi, a Labour MP, told Sky News he had been informed by ministers and Downing Street that an inquiry was 'under consideration'. After the release of documents in 2014, an internal government review found the UK's role was 'purely advisory' and given months beforehand. Then-foreign secretary William Hague said British military advice was given to India ahead of the deadly attack but said it had only 'limited impact'. Official Indian figures put the death toll at 575 according to the former Tory leader, who now sits as Lord Hague of Richmond in the House of Lords. Commons leader Lucy Powell said: 'It was raised with me previously a few months ago and I made clear what I hope would happen on that occasion. I absolutely understand the concerns of members across this House and from those from the Sikh community and many of those he represents as well. 'I did follow up when I was asked that previously, I have followed up these issues with the Foreign Office. I'm sorry to say I'm still waiting to hear about that from them, but I will ensure that when I do, he and other members are made fully aware of that and the House is updated.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store