SOUTH KOREA: Voice of Conscience – About the arrest of Dr Hak Ja Han
Reflections by PhDr. Juraj Lajda (Doctor of Philosophy), lecturer and publisher, former political prisoner under the communist regime in Czechoslovakia.
Prague, February 21, 2026 – Just hours ago, we learned that Dr. Hak Ja Han, the 83-year-old leader of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, has returned to her detention cell after a 10-day temporary release for urgent hospital treatment. She has been held since September 2025 on charges that appear to me based on fabricated and circumstantial evidence. At her advanced age, she endures severe health issues: failing eyesight, mobility limitations from knee surgery, and serious heart disease (arrhythmia) requiring surgery five months ago.
I am deeply shocked by the treatment this elderly religious leader receives from South Korea’s current regime. Her condition could not have improved so dramatically that her life is no longer at risk. As someone once long-term detained under a communist regime in Eastern Europe, I can testify that even there, prisoners faced less life-threatening conditions than Dr. Han endures in a nation deemed democratic since 1987.
Her plight recalls my own ordeal as a political prisoner in Czechoslovakia in the early 1970s. For following the teachings of South Korean Rev. Sun Myung Moon, I was sentenced—along with 17 other young people, mostly students—to three years and two months for subversion of the republic. Investigators held us nearly 10 months before trial.
During pretrial detention in Bratislava’s remand prison, I endured daily interrogations in a cramped 2×3-meter cell, often shared with two or three others. About six months in, my childhood atopic eczema flared severely in the harsh environment, covering my hands and worsening my overall health.
I reported this to the prison doctor, who, limited by prison conditions, arranged my transfer to a facility in Brno for specialized treatment. I remained in custody there for 40 days until my condition stabilized and the disease cleared.
Though still imprisoned—with restricted freedom, movement, and outside contact—the Brno cell was larger and more comfortable, with a bed and a routine adapted to medical care. Daily infirmary visits allowed doctors to focus on healing me. The physician treated me as a patient, not a criminal; his Hippocratic Oath compelled him to preserve life above all. Politically neutral, he prioritized humanity—even for the accused.
Coming from a family of doctors—my father a renowned surgeon—I understand medical duty well. The doctor decided on hospitalization and duration; any required approvals from investigators were granted because health demanded it. Detention’s purpose continued, but human life took precedence.
This occurred in communist Czechoslovakia in 1974. Even then, political prisoners received better medical consideration than Dr. Han under South Korea’s current administration led by President Lee.
I am shocked and appalled.
Who decides Dr. Han’s health needs—the prosecutor, judge, investigator, or her physician? If doctors recommend hospital stays and judicial permission is needed, what prevents it? Judges and prosecutors are not medical experts to dictate treatment length. Is law superior to human life? What kind of justice system prioritizes this?
Why do South Korean doctors not protest? They best understand her critical state. Is the Hippocratic Oath absent there?
This amounts to targeted destruction of a person—or slow murder.
My conclusion is that even under the communist regime I faced, political prisoners were treated better than in present-day South Korea. It makes me wonder whether South Korea is well on the way to become communist.
