Allowing Opposition Parties, Economic Pragmatism, and Open-Door Policy. But Authoritarian Industrialization Problematic. The issue of evaluating Park Chung-hee's regime is still controversial 30 years after his sudden death. Though South Korea is now recognized as one of the few successful models of accomplishing industrialization and democratization simultaneously, perceptions of Park Chung-hee are clearly divided between praise and abomination. "Park Chung Hee and His Legacy : What has changed after 30 years?" was an international symposium held to re-examine the merits and demerits of Park Chung-hee era. The symposium was held from October 19 to 20, a week before the 30th anniversary of the former president Park's death. Co-hosted by Center for East Asian Cooperation and Integration, Institute of East and West Studies at Yonsei University, Korea Institute, College of Asia and the Pacific, and the Australian National University, the panelists of the symposium came from both the left and the right, including Professor Im Hyuk-baeg (Korea University), Professor Park Myung-lim, and Professor Lew Seok-choon (Yonsei University). It also had international participants including Chaibong Hahm (RAND Corporation), Professor Kim Hyung-a and Paul Hutchcroft (Australian National University), and Professor Tat Yan Kong (SOAS, University of London). *Approval of Opposition Parties Professor Park Myung-lim analyzed the primary factors in the reversal of the two Koreas' gap in their GNP in 'The Two Models of Korean Modernization: Park Chung-hee versus Kim Il-sung.' South Korea's GNP per capita was 82 USD in 1961 when Park Chung-hee became the president of South. Korea's GNP per capita was 195 USD in that same year. In 1979, however, South Korea's GNP per capita was 1,640 USD, while North Korea's was 1,114. The first reason why it was possible for Park's regime to boost the capacity to surpass the North, according to Prof. Park, had to do with the challenges offered by the opposition parties, since the regime allowed plural opposition parties, democratic elections and multiple views, albeit within certain degree of restriction. Park's regime also achieved success in its competition with North Korea by concentrating energy and mobilizing resources, even though both regimes sought to reinforce authoritarianism and internal unity. "The primary factor of the outcome," Professor Park pointed out, "was that Kim Il-sung could not escape from the moral legitimacy of anti-Japanese nationalism at the ideological level, whereas Park Chung-hee pursued practical results of economic growth." While Park chose an open and internationalist strategy of 'going out to the world' for development, Kim Il-sung adopted a closed, independent 'isolation from the world' strategy, which ultimately became a critical difference. *"Can-Do" Campaign and the Change of National Character Professor Kim Hyung-a from Australian National University insisted that South Korea's national character of competence, efficiency and traction is a product of Park's "Can-Do" campaign, which, however, has been ignored. According to her paper, "Change in Korea's National Character: Park Chung-hee Era and Now," Saemaul Movement was a 'revolution' that made Korea achieve miraculous economic development in one generation. "Korean's character used to be described as dependent, yielding and lethargic," Professor Kim said, "but Park Chung-hee made it possible for Koreans to build a foundation for liberal democracy under the economic and educational freedom that were achieved through hardships." *Authoritarian Industrialization Was Not Inevitable Korea University's Professor Im Hyuk-baeg raised questions about the inevitability of authoritarianism in Park Chung-hee era for industrialization and democratization. Professor Im pointed out that Finland, Austria and Japan successfully achieved national development under democracy. Following his claim, Park Chung-hee industrialized South Korea to bolster his authoritarian regime. His dictatorship was not a necessary condition for industrialization. "Authoritarian industrialization or democratic industrialization, this is only a matter of choice, not a historical inevitability," Professor Im asserted. Yonsei's Professor Kim Dong-no drew attention to Park Chung-hee's unique strategy for social control as a primary factor of his regime's lasting for 18 years. According to his paper, "The Rebirth of Traditional Social Control During Modernization Process in Korea," Park's regime manipulated a nationalist ideology to make citizens believe they were born with historical mission to rebuild the nation. Professor Kim insisted that Saemaul Movement was a political strategy to control citizens by reestablishing the social order of traditional local communities.